Security Requirements Analysis Report

Comprehensive Security Analysis with Interactive Dashboard

Generated: 2025-11-19 18:21:38 Report Version: 2.0 - Comprehensive Security Analysis

---

1. Executive Summary

This section provides a high-level overview of the security requirements analysis, presenting key findings, validation results, and an interactive dashboard for stakeholders and decision-makers. The executive summary enables rapid comprehension of the security posture, critical risks, control coverage, and compliance status without requiring detailed technical knowledge.

1.1. Purpose and Scope

Purpose

This document presents a comprehensive security requirements analysis for the proposed application, systematically mapping high-level business requirements to specific, actionable security controls aligned with multiple industry standards: OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, and ISO 27001:2022. The analysis provides a complete security requirements specification that guides secure system design, implementation, and verification.

Scope

This analysis encompasses all functional requirements provided, delivering comprehensive coverage across multiple security domains:

• Requirements Analysis: Systematic decomposition and security-relevant extraction from business requirements
• Stakeholder Analysis: Identification of stakeholders, trust boundaries, and security responsibilities
• Threat Modeling: Systematic identification and assessment of security threats using STRIDE methodology
• Security Control Mapping: Mapping requirements to multi-standard security controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) with detailed implementation guidance
• Compliance Requirements: Identification of regulatory and legal compliance obligations
• Architectural Security: Security architecture recommendations and design patterns
• Implementation Planning: Prioritized, phased implementation roadmap
• Verification Strategies: Testing and validation approaches for security controls

The analysis provides both strategic guidance for security planning and tactical details for implementation teams.

1.2. Key Findings

This section summarizes the most critical results from the security requirements analysis, providing executives and stakeholders with immediate insight into the security posture and validation status.

Analysis Metrics

• Validation Score: 0.83/1.0
• Validation Status: ✅ Passed
• Analysis Iterations: 1
• Requirements Analyzed: 22

Application Summary

A confidential translation engine that provides real-time synchronous translation for short UI text and messages, and asynchronous, scalable, isolated processing for large, sensitive documents (e.g., multi-page patents and legal correspondence), preserving technical terminology, claim structure and formatting while guaranteeing no added commentary; exposes OpenAPI 3.1 REST endpoints with strict input validation, monitoring without content inspection, and strong confidentiality, access control, audit, and data lifecycle controls to meet regulatory and contractual obligations.

The validation score reflects the quality and completeness of the security requirements across five dimensions: completeness, consistency, correctness, implementability, and alignment with business objectives. A score of 0.8 or higher indicates that the requirements are ready for implementation, while scores below this threshold may require refinement before proceeding.

1.3. Security Overview Dashboard

This interactive dashboard provides executive-level visualization of key security metrics and trends, enabling rapid assessment of the security posture through intuitive charts and data visualizations. The dashboard presents critical information across multiple dimensions: risk distribution, security control coverage, compliance status, implementation progress, and data quality metrics. For optimal viewing experience, render this document with Quarto to enable interactive chart functionality, allowing stakeholders to explore data dynamically and drill down into specific areas of interest.

Risk

Figure 1: Risk heat map showing threat distribution by likelihood and impact (1-5 scale).

Top 5 Highest Risks:

THR-001 (Critical) - Edge & Auth - Category: Spoofing - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 4 - Description: Attackers steal or reuse OAuth2/OIDC tokens, API keys, or session cookies (via phishing, token leakage, or compromised client environments) to impersonate legitimate users and call synchronous and asy

THR-014 (Critical) - Orchestration & Task Queue - Category: Denial of Service - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 4 - Description: Attackers submit many large asynchronous translation tasks or specially crafted tasks to exhaust queue/backlog resources and worker capacity, degrading service for legitimate asynchronous workflows an

THR-023 (Critical) - High-Level Requirement: Real-time translation performance - Category: Denial of Service - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 4 - Description: Attackers exploit the strict ≤1 second sync latency by crafting many small rapid requests to exhaust low-latency worker pools and degrade real-time service.

THR-004 (High) - Edge & Auth - Category: Denial of Service - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 3 - Description: API key stuffing, excessive synchronous requests, or large uploads overwhelm the edge gateway causing degraded latency for real-time translations and blocking legitimate users.

THR-002 (High) - Edge & Auth - Category: Tampering - Likelihood: 3 | Impact: 4 - Description: Malicious file uploads bypass malware scanning or safe parsing (e.g., crafted PDFs, polyglots, or archive bombs) to implant backdoors or trigger upstream processing faults that corrupt conversion/tran

Controls

Figure 2: Security control distribution by standard (OWASP, NIST, ISO 27001).

Figure 3: OWASP ASVS control distribution by verification category (V1-V14).

Figure 4: Security control priority distribution (Critical/High/Medium/Low).

Coverage Metrics:

• Total Security Controls Mapped: 88
  • OWASP ASVS: 22 controls
  • NIST SP 800-53: 44 controls
  • ISO 27001: 22 controls
• Requirements with Security Control Mapping: 100.0% (22/22)
• Average Controls per Requirement: 4.0
• Critical Controls: 29 (33.0% of total)
• Requirements with Verification: 100.0% (22/22)
• Recommended ASVS Level: L2 (Standard)

Compliance

Figure 5: Compliance status across all applicable frameworks (Red-Amber-Green rating). Shows regulatory compliance (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.) and security standards (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001).

Compliance Summary:

• ⚠️ GDPR: In Progress (Next Audit: TBD)
• ⚠️ OWASP ASVS: In Progress (Next Audit: N/A)
• ⚠️ NIST SP 800-53: In Progress (Next Audit: N/A)
• ⚠️ ISO 27001: In Progress (Next Audit: N/A)

Delivery

Figure 6: Projected implementation timeline by phase and week (based on priority-based planning).

Implementation Timeline (Projected):

• Phase 1 (Critical/High): 100% projected completion (Weeks 1-8)
• Phase 2 (Medium): 100% projected completion (Weeks 9-16)
• Phase 3 (Low/Ongoing): Continuous improvement and monitoring

Note: Timeline is based on priority-based planning and assumes steady implementation progress.

Data Quality

Validation Metrics:

Overall Validation Score: ✅ 0.83/1.0

Dimension Scores:

• ✅ Completeness: 0.90
• ⚠️ Consistency: 0.75
• ✅ Correctness: 0.85
• ⚠️ Implementability: 0.75
• ✅ Alignment: 0.90

Figure 7: Data quality and coverage metrics.

Traceability Matrix:

• Total Requirements: 22
• Linked to Threats: 20 (90.9%)
• Mapped to Security Controls: 22 (100.0%)
• With Verification: 22 (100.0%)

Data Quality: ✅ Excellent

---

2. Requirements Understanding

This section presents a comprehensive analysis of the functional requirements, extracting security-relevant information and establishing the foundation for the security requirements specification. Understanding the functional requirements is essential for identifying security implications, data sensitivity, trust boundaries, and security-critical components. This analysis transforms business requirements into security-aware specifications that inform threat modeling, control selection, and compliance assessment.

2.1. High-Level Requirements Analysis

The following high-level functional requirements have been identified and analyzed for security implications:

1. Synchronous translation endpoint for short texts with sub-second (≤1s) latency
2. Asynchronous translation workflow for large documents with task creation and tracking
3. Per-request execution isolation and sandboxing for asynchronous tasks
4. Support for multi-format document ingestion and output preservation (PDF, DOCX, XML, etc.)
5. Preserve domain-specific terminology, claim/legal phrasing, and formatting fidelity
6. No-addition guarantee: outputs must not include commentary or reasoning
7. Full support for specified European languages and extensible support for Asian languages with strict BCP-47 validation
8. REST API exposing synchronous and asynchronous endpoints, OpenAPI 3.1 compliant
9. Distinct status and result endpoints for task lifecycle tracking (ST.90 workflow compliance)
10. Scalable task queueing, batching, and parallelization with deterministic performance targets
11. Efficient handling of high throughput with GPU utilization metrics and resource management
12. Non-intrusive monitoring and observability (throughput, latency, error rates, resource usage) without content inspection
13. Strong authentication and authorization for API access (token-based, MFA, RBAC)
14. Fine-grained access control and multi-tenant isolation (per-customer isolation options)
15. End-to-end encryption for data in transit and at rest, with customer-controlled keys where required
16. Secure key management, secrets handling, and cryptographic lifecycle controls
17. Comprehensive audit logging and immutable tamper-evident trails for requests, tasks, and outputs
18. Data retention, deletion, and data subject rights (GDPR) support including deletion/export of originals and outputs
19. Input validation, content sanitization, and protection against malicious files (malware scanning, safe parsing)
20. Deterministic model behavior controls and testing for terminology fidelity and non-addition properties
21. Vendor/third-party integration controls and supply chain security (model providers, storage, telemetry)
22. Incident response, backup & recovery, and disaster recovery plans for confidentiality and availability

2.2. Detailed Requirements Breakdown

Req ID	Requirement	Business Category	Security Sensitivity	Data Classification
REQ-001	Synchronous translation endpoint for short texts w…	Translation Services / Performance	High	Confidential
REQ-002	Asynchronous translation workflow for large docume…	Translation Services / Task Management	High	Confidential
REQ-003	Per-request execution isolation and sandboxing for…	Security / Execution Isolation	High	Restricted
REQ-004	Support for multi-format document ingestion and ou…	Document Processing / Data Management	High	Confidential
REQ-005	Preserve domain-specific terminology, claim/legal …	Translation Quality / Domain Fidelity	High	Confidential
REQ-006	No-addition guarantee: outputs must not include co…	Translation Quality / Compliance	High	Confidential
REQ-007	Full support for specified European languages and …	Language Support / Input Validation	Medium	Internal
REQ-008	REST API exposing synchronous and asynchronous end…	API & Integration	Medium	Public
REQ-009	Distinct status and result endpoints for task life…	Task Management / Integration	Medium	Confidential
REQ-010	Scalable task queueing, batching, and parallelizat…	Performance / Scalability	Medium	Internal
REQ-011	Efficient handling of high throughput with GPU uti…	Infrastructure / Monitoring	Medium	Internal
REQ-012	Non-intrusive monitoring and observability (throug…	Monitoring & Observability	High	Confidential
REQ-013	Strong authentication and authorization for API ac…	Authentication & Access Control	High	Confidential
REQ-014	Fine-grained access control and multi-tenant isola…	Access Control / Multi-Tenancy	High	Restricted
REQ-015	End-to-end encryption for data in transit and at r…	Cryptography / Data Protection	High	Restricted
REQ-016	Secure key management, secrets handling, and crypt…	Cryptography / Key Management	High	Restricted
REQ-017	Comprehensive audit logging and immutable tamper-e…	Audit & Compliance	High	Confidential
REQ-018	Data retention, deletion, and data subject rights …	Data Lifecycle / Compliance	High	Confidential
REQ-019	Input validation, content sanitization, and protec…	Input Handling / Security	High	Confidential
REQ-020	Deterministic model behavior controls and testing …	Quality Assurance / Model Governance	High	Internal
REQ-021	Vendor/third-party integration controls and supply…	Vendor Management / Supply Chain Security	High	Confidential
REQ-022	Incident response, backup & recovery, and disaster…	Operations / Incident Response	High	Confidential

2.3. Security Context and Regulatory Obligations

Applicable regulations and obligations include: GDPR (data subject rights, lawful processing, data protection by design and default) for EU personal data; trade secret and intellectual property protection obligations for patent documents; contractual NDAs and confidentiality agreements; export control restrictions where certain content or models may be subject to jurisdictional controls; ISO 27001/27701 as organizational security/privacy frameworks; NIST CSF and SP 800-53 guidance for security controls and incident response; local privacy laws (e.g., UK Data Protection Act) and sector-specific regulations where applicable. If processing healthcare or personal health data, HIPAA considerations would apply. Additionally, supply chain security requirements (e.g., using vetted cloud provider security baselines), and standards for API security (OAuth 2.0/OIDC, TLS 1.2+), and OpenAPI 3.1 compliance for interoperability must be observed. ST.90 workflow compliance is required for asynchronous task semantics.

2.4. Assumptions

• The system will be cloud-hosted with options for dedicated tenancy or customer-managed deployment (private cloud / on-premises) for customers with strict confidentiality needs.
• Users and integrators will access the service over HTTPS with authenticated API keys or OAuth tokens and have reliable internet connectivity.
• Customers will classify documents prior to ingestion and request appropriate isolation level (shared tenant, dedicated enclave, or on-prem deployment) based on sensitivity.
• Model weights and translation engines may be run on provider-managed GPUs unless customer requires BYOK and dedicated hardware or on-prem compute.
• Monitoring telemetry will be limited to metadata and aggregated metrics; raw document content will not be used for telemetry or logged unless explicitly permitted by the customer.
• Customers requiring the highest assurance will provide their own keys (BYOK) and may require contractual SLAs, audits, and penetration testing.
• Language tags will conform to BCP-47; fallback behavior will be defined for missing or ambiguous tags.
• Third-party components (parsers, converters, antivirus engines) will be kept up-to-date and vetted for security posture.

2.5. Constraints

• Must implement OpenAPI 3.1 for public API surface; API design must separate sync and async endpoints as per requirements.
• Real-time synchronous latency target ≤1 second may constrain model size, deployment topology (nearest inference endpoints), and require pre-warmed instances or distilled models.
• Large document processing must comply with ST.90 workflow semantics and maintain task durability across restarts.
• Non-intrusive monitoring disallows logging or inspection of document content in telemetry pipelines; only metadata may be collected.
• BYOK and customer-managed key support may require HSM integration and additional compliance controls, increasing implementation complexity.
• Per-request isolation and sandboxing may limit horizontal density of workloads and increase cost for dedicated isolation modes.
• Strict BCP-47 validation may reject ambiguous or regionally-customized tags; a policy to handle extensions and private-use subtags must be defined.
• Preservation of exact formatting and legal phrasing imposes constraints on translation post-processing and may require domain-specific post-editing pipelines.
• Supply chain and vendor restrictions may limit use of certain third-party models or services in specific jurisdictions due to export control or data residency requirements.
• Audit and immutable logging of metadata must balance privacy (avoid storing content) with forensic requirements; secure, tamper-evident storage (WORM or equivalent) will be required.

---

3. Stakeholder Analysis

This section identifies and analyzes all stakeholders involved in or affected by the system, including users, administrators, external partners, and regulatory bodies. Stakeholder analysis establishes trust boundaries, defines security responsibilities, and identifies potential security concerns from different stakeholder perspectives. Understanding stakeholder relationships and trust boundaries is critical for designing appropriate access controls, authentication mechanisms, and data protection measures.

3.1. Identified Stakeholders and User Personas

Role	Privilege Level	Trust Level	Key Security Concerns
End User (Translator)	User	Trusted	Unauthorized access to sensitive translations, data leakage through insufficient access controls
System Administrator	Admin	Trusted	Privilege escalation by malicious insiders, account compromise leading to system-wide access
API Integrator	Service Account	Partially Trusted	Insecure API integration exposing sensitive data, lack of proper authentication mechanisms
External Language Service	Service Account	Partially Trusted	Misuse of translation services, unauthorized access to document contents
Monitoring Service	Service Account	Untrusted	Insecure access to telemetry data, potential exposure of sensitive operational metrics
Data Layer	Service Account	Trusted	Data breaches during storage or transmission, insufficient encryption practices
Compliance Officer	User	Trusted	Non-compliance with data privacy regulations, inadequate audit trails
Client Application User	User	Partially Trusted	Credential theft through phishing, unauthorized access to translation requests
Legal Auditor	User	Trusted	Incomplete audit logs, failure to maintain compliance documentation

3.2. Trust Model

Trust boundaries are established at multiple levels: the user interface (where users interact with the application), the backend servers (where processing and business logic occur), and the data layer (where sensitive documents are stored and managed). Security mechanisms enforcing these boundaries include strong user authentication methods (such as multi-factor authentication), role-based access control (RBAC) to ensure that users can only access functionalities and data pertinent to their roles, and network segmentation to mitigate risks of unauthorized access.

End Users (Translators) can access only the translation functionalities they need, while System Administrators have comprehensive access management capabilities. API Integrators have limited access to specific API endpoints relevant to their integration tasks. External Language Services are granted access to translation processes but cannot view the original documents. Monitoring Services, classified as untrusted, have restricted access to non-sensitive telemetry data only. The principle of least privilege is implemented by granting users the minimum necessary access required to perform their tasks, thus reducing the risk of data exposure and privilege escalation.

Overall, the architecture is designed to protect the confidentiality of sensitive content while allowing necessary interactions between stakeholders, each defined by their roles and trust levels.

---

4. System Architecture Analysis

4.1. Architectural Overview

The system is a cloud-hosted confidential translation platform composed of an edge/API gateway for authentication and malware-safe ingestion, a frontend layer for client integrations, core application services that expose synchronous low-latency and asynchronous ST.90-compliant endpoints, a scalable processing & inference layer that performs sandboxed per-request document preprocessing and GPU-backed translation, and a data layer offering encrypted object storage, metadata/audit stores, and KMS/HSM for BYOK. Monitoring and orchestration components provide non-intrusive telemetry and capacity management while external services (IdP, AV, external storage) are integrated under strict vendor controls. Components communicate over encrypted channels, tasks are durably tracked, outputs stored encrypted with fine-grained access, and strong access controls, audit trails, and retention/deletion flows enforce confidentiality and compliance.

4.2. Architecture Diagram

4.3. Component Breakdown

Component	Responsibility	Security Criticality	External Dependencies
Edge & Auth	Ingress control, TLS termination, rate l…	Critical	Identity Provider (IdP) - OAuth2/OIDC, WAF / DDoS protection (cloud vendor)
Frontend Layer	User-facing clients and integrations (we…	High	Customer environments / Integrator SDKs
Application Services	Core REST API implementing OpenAPI 3.1, …	Critical	Service discovery / internal auth, Queueing infrastructure (cloud managed or self-hosted)
Processing & Inference	Document preprocessing/conversion, domai…	Critical	GPU/Compute provider, Model provider (internal or third-party)
Orchestration & Task Queue	Scalable queueing, batching, worker auto…	High	Message queue service (e.g., Kafka, SQS), Autoscaling controller (cloud)
Data Layer	Encrypted object storage for originals a…	Critical	Cloud object storage, KMS / HSM vendor
Operations & Observability	Non-intrusive monitoring, aggregated met…	High	Metrics/Alerting provider (Prometheus/Grafana/Cloud Monitoring), Logging S3 or secure logging service
External Services	Third-party integrations used for identi…	High	Identity Provider, AV/Virus Scan Provider

4.4. Data Flow Analysis

Clients (UI/SDK/CLI) authenticate via the Edge/Auth layer and submit synchronous short-text requests or asynchronous document tasks. Edge performs malware scanning and forwards validated requests to Application Services. Synchronous requests are routed to pre-warmed inference paths in Processing & Inference with deterministic scheduling to meet ≤1s latency. Asynchronous tasks are enqueued by the Task Manager (ST.90 semantics), then scheduled to isolated sandboxes where the Preprocessor converts documents, the Model runs on GPU instances, and Postprocessor enforces terminology preservation and no-addition rules. Originals and encrypted outputs are stored in Encrypted Object Storage with keys managed by KMS/HSM; metadata and tamper-evident audit logs are stored separately. Monitoring receives only aggregated telemetry (no content), and alerting/operations handle scaling and incidents. Customers may optionally integrate their own storage or request dedicated tenancy or BYOK for keys.

4.5. Attack Surface Analysis

Major entry points: public REST API endpoints (synchronous and asynchronous), file upload interfaces (document ingestion), authentication endpoints (token exchange, admin IAM), client SDKs/CLI, and integrations (webhooks, external storage connectors). Risk levels: Public API (High) — risks include credential theft, injection, and abuse; mitigations include OAuth2/OIDC, MFA, rate limiting, WAF, strict OpenAPI validation, and RBAC. File uploads (High) — risks include malware and parser exploits; mitigations include sandboxed parsing, AV scanning, safe libraries, and per-request sandboxing. Admin/Operator interfaces (High) — risk of privileged misuse; mitigations include MFA, least privilege, session recording, and strong audit trails. Inter-service communications (Medium) — risk of lateral movement; mitigations include mTLS, network segmentation, and service identity. Third-party integrations (High) — supply-chain and exfiltration risk; mitigations include contractual controls, encryption in transit, minimal data sharing, and vendor audits. KMS/HSM integration (Critical) — risk if keys are compromised; mitigations include hardware-backed keys, split access, audit logs, and BYOK for customer control. Observability endpoints (Low-Medium) — risk of telemetry leaking metadata; mitigate by excluding content, aggregating metrics, and securing telemetry pipelines. Overall, defenses rely on strong authentication, per-request isolation, encrypted storage, tamper-evident audit logs, safe parsing, and rigorous vendor controls.

---

5. Threat Modeling

This section presents a comprehensive threat analysis of the system architecture and functional requirements. Threat modeling systematically identifies potential security vulnerabilities and attack vectors, enabling proactive risk mitigation through the application of appropriate security controls.

5.1. Threat Modeling Methodology

This analysis employs the STRIDE threat modeling methodology, a systematic framework developed by Microsoft for identifying security threats across six categories:

• Spoofing Identity: Threats involving impersonation of users or systems
• Tampering with Data: Threats involving unauthorized modification of data or system components
• Repudiation: Threats where users deny performing actions (lack of non-repudiation)
• Information Disclosure: Threats involving unauthorized access to sensitive information
• Denial of Service: Threats causing disruption or unavailability of system services
• Elevation of Privilege: Threats allowing unauthorized access to privileged functions

For each identified threat, the analysis evaluates likelihood (attack complexity and exposure) and impact (potential damage to confidentiality, integrity, or availability) to determine overall risk level. The methodology ensures comprehensive coverage of security concerns across all system components and interfaces.

5.2. Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment

5.2.1. Threat Overview

The following table provides a quick reference of all identified threats. Detailed analysis including descriptions, mitigation strategies, and residual risk assessment (where available) is provided in the section below.

Threat ID	Component	Category	Risk Level	Likelihood	Impact
THR-001	Edge & Auth	Spoofing	Critical	High	High
THR-014	Orchestration & Task Queue	Denial of Service	Critical	High	High
THR-023	High-Level Requirement: Real-time translation performance	Denial of Service	Critical	High	High
THR-002	Edge & Auth	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-003	Edge & Auth	Information Disclosure	High	Low	High
THR-004	Edge & Auth	Denial of Service	High	High	Medium
THR-005	Frontend Layer	Spoofing	High	Medium	High
THR-007	Application Services	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-008	Application Services	Repudiation	High	Medium	High
THR-010	Processing & Inference	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-011	Processing & Inference	Tampering	High	Low	High
THR-012	Processing & Inference	Elevation of Privilege	High	Low	High
THR-013	Processing & Inference	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-015	Orchestration & Task Queue	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-016	Data Layer	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-017	Data Layer	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-018	Data Layer	Spoofing	High	Low	High
THR-019	Operations & Observability	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-020	Operations & Observability	Tampering	High	Low	High
THR-021	External Services	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-022	External Services	Spoofing	High	Low	High
THR-025	High-Level Requirement: Document Processing (fidelity & non-addition)	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-028	Processing & Inference	Denial of Service	High	Medium	High
THR-029	Data Layer	Repudiation	High	Medium	High
THR-030	External Services	Elevation of Privilege	High	Low	High
THR-032	Application Services / Data Layer	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-034	Processing & Inference	Elevation of Privilege	High	Medium	High
THR-036	All Components / Architecture Requirements	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-006	Frontend Layer	Tampering	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-009	Application Services	Information Disclosure	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-024	High-Level Requirement: Language Support & Input Validation	Tampering	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-026	API & Integration (OpenAPI endpoints)	Repudiation	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-027	Orchestration & Task Queue	Information Disclosure	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-031	Frontend Layer / Application Services	Spoofing	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-033	Monitoring & Observability / External Services	Information Disclosure	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-035	High-Level Requirement: Monitoring & Observability	Denial of Service	Medium	Medium	Medium

Total Threats Identified: 36

5.2.2. Detailed Threat Analysis

This section provides comprehensive analysis of each identified threat, including descriptions, mitigation strategies, and residual risk assessment (where controls have been evaluated). Threats are organized by risk level for prioritized review.

Critical Risk Threats

THR-001 - Edge & Auth

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: High | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: Critical
• Description: Attackers steal or reuse OAuth2/OIDC tokens, API keys, or session cookies (via phishing, token leakage, or compromised client environments) to impersonate legitimate users and call synchronous and asynchronous endpoints.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce short-lived access tokens and refresh token policing, use mutual TLS for service-to-service auth, implement token binding or DPAPI for browser storage, require MFA for high-privilege actions, monitor for anomalous token usage and implement token revocation/blacklisting. Protect client secrets in secure storage and rotate keys regularly.
• Controls Applied: OIDC/OAuth2 best practices, V2.1.1
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-014 - Orchestration & Task Queue

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: High | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: Critical
• Description: Attackers submit many large asynchronous translation tasks or specially crafted tasks to exhaust queue/backlog resources and worker capacity, degrading service for legitimate asynchronous workflows and potentially affecting sync path.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement per-customer quotas, enforce task size/time limits, prioritize low-latency sync workers, use queue backpressure mechanisms, autoscaling with cost/attack-aware policies, and employ admission control that validates tasks before enqueueing.
• Controls Applied: Quota enforcement, admission control
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: High
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-023 - High-Level Requirement: Real-time translation performance

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: High | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: Critical
• Description: Attackers exploit the strict ≤1 second sync latency by crafting many small rapid requests to exhaust low-latency worker pools and degrade real-time service.
• Mitigation Strategy: Reserve capacity for sync path, implement strict per-key/tenant low-latency quotas, circuit breakers, token-based prioritization, and autoscale separately for sync and async. Apply backpressure and rate-limiting tuned for real-time SLAs.
• Controls Applied: Resource reservations, rate limiting
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: High
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

High Risk Threats

THR-002 - Edge & Auth

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Malicious file uploads bypass malware scanning or safe parsing (e.g., crafted PDFs, polyglots, or archive bombs) to implant backdoors or trigger upstream processing faults that corrupt conversion/translation steps.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use multi-engine AV scanning (sandbox detonation) and strong file type validation, unpack and scan nested archives, size/time limits, run ingestion in constrained sandboxes with resource/time caps and content normalization before handing to core processing. Implement static parsers and runtime exploit mitigation (ASLR, cgroups).
• Controls Applied: Defense-in-depth scanning, V3.2.3
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-003 - Edge & Auth

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Misconfigured TLS or TLS termination at edge permits MITM or use of weak ciphers allowing eavesdropping on uploaded document binaries or tokens in transit.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce TLS 1.2+/1.3 only, strong cipher suites, HSTS, certificate pinning for critical clients, regular certificate/key rotation and automated monitoring for certificate expiry or rogue CA alerts. Log and alert on downgraded or weak-negotiation sessions.
• Controls Applied: TLS best practices, V2.1.1
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-004 - Edge & Auth

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: High | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: API key stuffing, excessive synchronous requests, or large uploads overwhelm the edge gateway causing degraded latency for real-time translations and blocking legitimate users.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement per-tenant and per-API-key rate limits, adaptive throttling, challenge-response (CAPTCHA or proof-of-work) for anonymous heavy usage, upstream WAF and cloud DDoS protections, and prioritized queues for low-latency paths.
• Controls Applied: Rate limiting, WAF, V3.1.1
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-005 - Frontend Layer

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Malicious or compromised SDK/CLI distributed to customers tricks users into sending credentials or files to attacker-controlled endpoints, impersonating the official frontend.
• Mitigation Strategy: Sign SDK binaries and release artifacts, publish checksums, use verified distribution channels, provide documented SDK validation steps, and maintain supply-chain monitoring. Encourage customers to use signed clients and provide a private package feed option.
• Controls Applied: Software supply-chain protections
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-007 - Application Services

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Injection attacks (SQL/NoSQL, OS command, template injection) via unvalidated request fields or document metadata corrupt metadata DB or allow arbitrary code execution in orchestration components.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use parameterized queries/ORMs, strict schema validation, sanitize inputs, employ least-privilege DB accounts, protect against unsafe deserialization, and run code with minimal rights. Apply static analysis and runtime WAF rules tuned to API shapes.
• Controls Applied: Input validation, parameterized queries, OWASP A1
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-008 - Application Services

• Category: Repudiation
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Insufficient or tamperable audit trails allow users or attackers to deny or erase actions (task submissions, deletions, translations) impacting compliance and non-repudiation requirements.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement tamper-evident, WORM audit logs (append-only storage), cryptographic signing of audit entries, separate write-only logging service, synchronized timestamps, and retention policy enforcement. Use HSM-backed signing for critical events.
• Controls Applied: WORM logs, HSM signing
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-010 - Processing & Inference

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Sensitive content leaks to third-party model providers or to other tenants (multi-tenant GPU memory persistence, model provider telemetry, or proxied inference calls) exposing confidential document contents.
• Mitigation Strategy: Prefer on-prem or private models; if using third-party models, use VPC/ private endpoints, encrypt in transit, minimize data sent (prompt redaction), sign and audit requests, use BYOK and strict contractual controls, and ensure GPU memory is zeroed between jobs. Disable telemetry by default and use proxied, audited access patterns.
• Controls Applied: BYOK, private VPC endpoints, Data minimization
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-011 - Processing & Inference

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Model poisoning or malicious third-party models insert commentary, change claims, or alter translations to add/extract meaning—violating the ‘no-addition’ and patent fidelity requirements.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use vetted, signed models, perform model integrity checks, keep training/inference pipelines isolated, run deterministic validation tests for domain fidelity (e.g., automated consistency checks against known patent structures), apply human review gates for high-risk outputs, and maintain provenance of model versions.
• Controls Applied: Model signing, provenance
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-012 - Processing & Inference

• Category: Elevation of Privilege
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Escaping sandboxed execution (container breakout or misconfigured VM) allows attacker-controlled preprocessing code or maliciously crafted documents to gain host-level privileges and access other tenants’ data or keys.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use strong sandboxing: minimal host footprint, kernel hardening, seccomp/AppArmor, separate network namespaces, immutable images, regular CVE patching, run workloads as non-root, and enforce strict resource limits. Use workload attestation and isolate tenants onto separate nodes for critical workloads.
• Controls Applied: Container sandboxing, kernel hardening
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-013 - Processing & Inference

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Residual data in GPU or worker memory is accessible to subsequent jobs (data remanence), causing cross-request data leakage.
• Mitigation Strategy: Zero-memory between jobs, enforce strict worker lifecycle (one job per worker where required), use encryption-in-use technologies where possible, and schedule high-sensitivity jobs on dedicated hardware. Regularly audit memory handling procedures.
• Controls Applied: Memory zeroing, dedicated hardware
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-015 - Orchestration & Task Queue

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: An attacker manipulates task descriptors in the queue (e.g., altering target storage, outputs path, or status) to redirect outputs to attacker-controlled storage or cause data corruption.
• Mitigation Strategy: Sign and verify task descriptors, encrypt sensitive descriptor fields, enforce RBAC checks during orchestration, validate storage endpoints against allow-lists, and maintain immutable task audit trails.
• Controls Applied: Task signing, allow-listing storage targets
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-016 - Data Layer

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Compromise or misconfiguration of cloud object storage or metadata DB exposes encrypted or unencrypted originals, outputs, or audit logs to attackers (e.g., public bucket or improper ACLs).
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce bucket policies and deny public access by default, server-side encryption with BYOK keys, enforce bucket-level logging and access monitoring, implement least-privilege IAM for storage access, and periodic automated checks for misconfigurations.
• Controls Applied: S3 public access blocks, IAM least privilege
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-017 - Data Layer

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: An attacker or insider modifies or deletes encrypted outputs, metadata, or audit logs to cover tracks or alter history (including retention/deletion flows) undermining non-repudiation and compliance.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use immutable, append-only audit storage (WORM), separate key management for logs, enforce multi-person approval for critical deletions, and retain encrypted off-site backups. Monitor for abnormal deletion patterns and implement alerting.
• Controls Applied: WORM, multi-person approval
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-018 - Data Layer

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Compromise of KMS/HSM keys or improper BYOK processes allows attackers to decrypt stored outputs and originals.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use HSM-backed key storage, strict key access controls, split knowledge procedures for BYOK import/export, hardware-backed attestation, rotate keys regularly, and limit cryptographic operations to dedicated services with strong logging and audited access.
• Controls Applied: HSM, BYOK controls
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-019 - Operations & Observability

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Logs, traces, or error messages inadvertently include sensitive document snippets or PII causing exposure when logs are stored in less-protected systems.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement structured logging with scrubbing/redaction, avoid logging full payloads, apply log sanitization pipelines, restrict log access, encrypt logs at rest, and separate telemetry roles from data access roles. Provide safe debug modes requiring elevated approval.
• Controls Applied: Log redaction, role separation
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-020 - Operations & Observability

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: An attacker tampers with metrics/alerting to suppress alerts or hide resource abuse (e.g., disable GPU utilization alarms to continue exfiltration), delaying detection.
• Mitigation Strategy: Secure metrics ingestion with authentication and integrity checks, maintain redundant alerting channels, log metric changes, and monitor metrics of metrics (meta-alerting). Restrict who can modify alerting rules and require approvals.
• Controls Applied: Authenticated metrics, RBAC for alerts
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-021 - External Services

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Third-party AV/Model providers exfiltrate scanned document metadata or inference prompts via telemetry or logs, leading to sensitive data disclosure off-platform.
• Mitigation Strategy: Contractual controls (SCM), limit data shared to minimal required fields, encrypt and proxy requests through internal gateways, sign and audit outbound calls, perform security assessments of vendors, and disable vendor telemetry. Use on-prem or private models where confidentiality is required.
• Controls Applied: Vendor risk management
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-022 - External Services

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Compromised Identity Provider (IdP) or federated trust relationships allow attacker to mint valid tokens and access the translation service as legitimate customers.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use strong federation controls, periodic assertion verification, configure short token lifetimes and token revocation hooks, rely on IdP audit logs, and adopt multi-factor authentication and anomaly detection for IdP accounts. Implement brokered trust with strict claims validation.
• Controls Applied: Federation best practices
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: High
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-025 - High-Level Requirement: Document Processing (fidelity & non-addition)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Model hallucination or automated post-processing adds commentary or reasoning sections to translated outputs (violating non-addition requirement) or intentionally inserts data from training sources.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement deterministic, rule-based post-processing to strip non-domain text, enforce structure-preserving translation heuristics, set model constraints/decoding penalties for additions, run automated fidelity checks comparing input/output structure, and require human validation for legally critical documents.
• Controls Applied: Post-processing filters, human-in-loop
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-028 - Processing & Inference

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Crafted documents (e.g., extremely complex DOCX/XML with nested objects) intentionally trigger expensive preprocessing and inference loops consuming GPU/CPU leading to resource exhaustion.
• Mitigation Strategy: Introduce preprocessing complexity checks, document complexity scoring and rejection, cost-estimation and cap enforcement, per-request resource limits, and sandbox timeouts. Implement queuing priority and deferred processing for expensive inputs.
• Controls Applied: Complexity scoring, timeouts
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-029 - Data Layer

• Category: Repudiation
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Inadequate retention/deletion workflows leave copies of documents or outputs after customer-requested deletion, violating compliance and allowing later evidence of earlier content.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement and verify retention policies, maintain deletion provenance and proof-of-deletion logs signed with HSM keys, delete or re-encrypt backups per policy, and provide customers verifiable deletion receipts. Test deletion workflows periodically.
• Controls Applied: Retention automation, signed deletion receipts
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-030 - External Services

• Category: Elevation of Privilege
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: A compromised cloud vendor control plane or misconfigured IAM roles grants attackers escalated privileges in cloud-managed services (e.g., ability to start instances or access storage), enabling large-scale data exfiltration or service tampering.
• Mitigation Strategy: Adopt least-privilege IAM, separate accounts for critical services, enforce service control policies and SCPs, use monitoring for privileged actions, require approval workflows for infrastructure changes, and tightly control cross-account trust.
• Controls Applied: Least-privilege IAM, SCPs
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-032 - Application Services / Data Layer

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Broken access control (e.g., missing tenant checks, weak RBAC) permits an authenticated user to access or modify other tenants’ tasks, results, or metadata (IDOR).
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce strong multitenancy boundaries, server-side authorization checks on every resource access, use tenant-scoped credentials, automated access-control tests, and periodic access reviews.
• Controls Applied: RBAC, tenant scoping
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-034 - Processing & Inference

• Category: Elevation of Privilege
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Weak internal service auth between application services and processing nodes allows a compromised service to call GPU/back-end APIs and perform privileged actions (e.g., access to KMS or other tenants’ jobs).
• Mitigation Strategy: Use mTLS with mutual authentication for internal RPC, short-lived certificates, service identity enforcement, strict role-based policies for service accounts, and isolate sensitive APIs behind additional gateways with authorization policies.
• Controls Applied: mTLS, service identities
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-036 - All Components / Architecture Requirements

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Insider threat (malicious employees or contractors) with privileged access to logs, keys, or storage exfiltrate sensitive documents or enable abuse via misconfiguration.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce least privilege, strong background checks, just-in-time privileged access, session recording for sensitive actions, separation of duties, comprehensive audit logging with anomaly detection, and strict contractual and legal controls.
• Controls Applied: Least privilege, JIT access, audit
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

Medium Risk Threats

THR-006 - Frontend Layer

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Client-side XSS or compromised UI allows modification of language tags or request payloads leading to malformed or malicious requests reaching backend endpoints, potentially bypassing BCP-47 validation or triggering processing vulnerabilities.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce CSP, sanitize all UI inputs, use secure frameworks with templating auto-escaping, implement server-side validation of BCP-47 tags and payloads, and use same-site cookies and CSRF tokens.
• Controls Applied: CSP, input validation, CSRF protections
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-009 - Application Services

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Excessive API responses or debug endpoints leak metadata or partial content (e.g., translation outputs, language tags, filenames) to unauthorized callers via misconfigured RBAC or open endpoints.
• Mitigation Strategy: Harden APIs: require authorization checks for all endpoints, minimize metadata returned, apply field-level access controls, disable debug endpoints in production, and implement robust API schema validation and response filtering.
• Controls Applied: RBAC, response filtering
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-024 - High-Level Requirement: Language Support & Input Validation

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Malformed BCP-47 language tags or deliberately crafted tags trigger parser bugs or route requests to incorrect models, causing incorrect translation or possible crash/injection into model pipeline.
• Mitigation Strategy: Strict BCP-47 validation server-side with canonicalization, reject unknown tags, use robust parsing libraries, fuzz tests for language tag parser, and log/alert on unknown/rare tags.
• Controls Applied: Strict schema validation
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-026 - API & Integration (OpenAPI endpoints)

• Category: Repudiation
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Lack of signed requests or immutable logs at API level allows clients to repudiate performed actions or deny submitted content (e.g., claims that translation was not requested).
• Mitigation Strategy: Sign critical API requests/responses (e.g., webhook HMAC), persist request payload hashes in WORM logs, require non-repudiation controls for legal workflows, and provide verifiable receipts to callers.
• Controls Applied: Request signing, verifiable receipts
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-027 - Orchestration & Task Queue

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Task metadata (status endpoints) allow enumeration of tasks across tenants if identifiers are predictable, leaking workflow patterns or metadata.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use cryptographically random task IDs, enforce authorization on status endpoints, minimize metadata exposed publicly, and implement tenant-scoped resource identifiers.
• Controls Applied: Randomized IDs, authorization checks
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-031 - Frontend Layer / Application Services

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: CSRF attacks on authenticated user sessions cause unauthorized translation submissions or status queries on behalf of users.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement anti-CSRF tokens for web clients, enforce same-site cookies, require authentication headers (not cookie-only) for APIs, and validate origin/Referer headers for browser-based flows.
• Controls Applied: CSRF tokens, same-site cookies
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-033 - Monitoring & Observability / External Services

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Sending telemetry to third-party monitoring services without filtering may inadvertently forward sensitive telemetry or aggregated patterns that enable reconstruction of document metadata.
• Mitigation Strategy: Sanitize telemetry before export, use internal metrics aggregation with export filters, pseudonymize identifiers, and contractually restrict third-party use of telemetry. Use encrypted channels and role-based access to telemetry dashboards.
• Controls Applied: Telemetry sanitization
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-035 - High-Level Requirement: Monitoring & Observability

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Over-collection of telemetry or misconfigured monitoring agents consume CPU/GPU resources on processing nodes, impacting translation throughput and latency.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use lightweight, sampled telemetry, off-host collectors, limit scraping frequency, and isolate monitoring to separate CPU/GPU cycles. Monitor agent performance and have emergency disable switches for monitoring agents.
• Controls Applied: Telemetry sampling
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

Risk Reduction Summary:

• Critical Risk Reduction: 3 threats reduced from Critical to lower levels
• High Risk Reduction: 24 threats reduced from High to lower levels
• Residual Risk Distribution: 3 threats remain at Critical/High level

5.3. Risk Summary

The most critical threats derive from unauthorized access to documents and credentials (token theft, compromised IdP, and stolen keys), resource exhaustion attacks that impact the strict real-time translation SLA, and sensitive-data leakage via third-party model providers, GPU memory remanence, or misconfigured storage. Key attack vectors include stolen/forged tokens at the Edge & Auth, malicious file uploads and parsing vulnerabilities in ingestion and preprocessing, model/provider-based exfiltration in Processing & Inference, and queue/backlog abuse in Orchestration & Task Queue. Immediate priorities: 1) strengthen identity controls (short-lived tokens, MFA, token revocation, and IdP hardening); 2) enforce data confidentiality via BYOK, HSM-backed key management, strong tenant isolation, and memory zeroing on GPUs; 3) protect availability of the sync path with reserved capacity, strict per-tenant quotas and prioritized queues; 4) harden ingestion and preprocessing with multi-engine malware scanning and sandboxing; and 5) enforce robust audit/WORM logging and deletion/retention proofs to meet non-repudiation/compliance requirements. Overall posture: conditional — many high risks can be reduced to medium with the controls already described in the architecture; however, residual risks (particularly around third-party providers, insider threat, and DoS against low-latency paths) require ongoing attention, contractual controls, continuous monitoring, and periodic red-team exercises. Prioritize identity/key protection, sandbox/isolation hardening, queue admission control, vendor risk management, and telemetry/log sanitization as the highest-value controls.

---

6. Multi-Standard Security Requirements Mapping

This section maps each functional requirement to specific security controls from multiple industry standards: OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, and ISO 27001:2022. This multi-standard approach provides comprehensive coverage across application-level, enterprise-level, and organizational-level security domains:

• OWASP ASVS: Application-level security controls (code, APIs, authentication, session management)
• NIST SP 800-53: Enterprise security controls (governance, risk management, incident response)
• ISO 27001: Information security management controls (policies, procedures, organizational controls)

Requirements are prioritized based on risk assessment and compliance needs, with controls selected from the most appropriate standard(s) for each requirement type.

6.1. Recommended ASVS Compliance Level

Recommended Level: L3

Level 3: Advanced

Required for high-security applications with stringent protection requirements. Includes advanced security controls, detailed verification procedures, and enhanced threat resistance. Suitable for applications handling highly sensitive data (e.g., financial, healthcare, government) or operating in high-risk environments.

The recommendation considers factors such as:

• Data sensitivity and classification levels
• Regulatory and compliance requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.)
• Threat landscape and risk assessment from threat modeling
• Business criticality and potential impact of security incidents

All security controls referenced in this document align with this recommended compliance level.

6.2. Requirements Mapping

This section maps each high-level requirement to specific security controls from multiple standards (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) with detailed descriptions, relevance explanations, and integration guidance. Controls are grouped by standard for clarity.

6.2.1. R1: Synchronous translation endpoint for short texts with sub-second (≤41s) latency

OWASP ASVS Controls

V12.1

Requirement: Implement performance considerations, rate limiting and protective measures to ensure API responds within acceptable latency targets.

Relevance: Directly addresses API performance and protective measures required to meet sub-second latency SLAs for synchronous endpoints. It guides implementing rate limiting and performance-aware API design to maintain target latency under normal and elevated loads.

Integration Tips: Design the synchronous endpoint with optimized request paths, lightweight payloads, and appropriate caching. Implement rate limiting tiers and circuit breakers to protect latency guarantees and ensure graceful degradation.

Verification Method: Load and latency testing under expected and spike loads; review rate-limiter configuration and monitoring dashboards showing 95th/99th percentile latency within target.

Level: V2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

RA-5

Requirement: Assess and document risks related to performance and availability, including latency targets and their impact on system operations.

Relevance: Requires documenting performance/availability risks and understanding how latency targets affect system behavior and threat models for synchronous services.

Integration Tips: Perform a performance risk assessment that maps latency SLAs to threat scenarios (e.g., DoS, overload). Use the results to prioritize resource allocation and mitigation strategies.

Verification Method: Review risk assessment artifacts that include latency targets, mitigation decisions, and evidence of remediation or acceptance.

Priority: High

CP-2

Requirement: Develop and maintain contingency plans to ensure continued operations and availability under disruptions, including performance degradation.

Relevance: Supports continuity of low-latency services during disruptions by requiring contingency arrangements to preserve SLA commitments.

Integration Tips: Define fallback or degraded-mode behaviors and alternative processing paths to preserve responsiveness (e.g., lightweight responses, cached translations). Test contingency plans regularly.

Verification Method: Review contingency plans and exercise records demonstrating preservation of latency goals during simulated disruptions.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.1

Requirement: Documented operating procedures and responsibilities for maintaining availability and performance of information processing facilities.

Relevance: Mandates operational procedures to maintain availability and performance which underpin meeting strict synchronous latency requirements.

Integration Tips: Document operational runbooks specifying how to maintain low-latency endpoints (autoscaling rules, incident runbooks, monitoring thresholds). Assign responsibilities for SLAs and escalation.

Verification Method: Inspect operational procedures/runbooks and evidence of duty assignment; audit incidents against procedures to confirm adherence.

Priority: High

6.2.2. R2: Asynchronous translation workflow for large documents with task creation and tracking

OWASP ASVS Controls

V12.3

Requirement: Ensure asynchronous operations expose task creation, status and result endpoints and protect them with proper authentication and authorization.

Relevance: Directly prescribes exposing creation, status and result endpoints for asynchronous workflows and securing them, matching the requirement for task creation and tracking.

Integration Tips: Implement a task API with separate creation, status, and result endpoints; apply authentication/authorization checks on each and design idempotency and error codes for reliable tracking.

Verification Method: Review API specification and test that create/status/result endpoints exist, enforce auth, and behave as specified under normal and error conditions.

Level: V2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SI-4

Requirement: Track and monitor system operations including job processing queues, task states, and errors for integrity and availability.

Relevance: Mandates monitoring of job queues and task states to ensure integrity and availability of asynchronous workflows and support operational tracking.

Integration Tips: Instrument queue length, task latencies, error counts and success rates; emit events for task lifecycle transitions to monitoring and alerting pipelines.

Verification Method: Inspect monitoring dashboards, alerts, and logs demonstrating job queue and lifecycle metrics; validate alerting thresholds and incident records.

Priority: High

PM-14

Requirement: Define and maintain enterprise-level workflow standards including lifecycle management for tasks and services.

Relevance: Supports standardized lifecycle management for enterprise asynchronous operations and ensures consistent task handling and tracking across services.

Integration Tips: Adopt enterprise workflow standards and map service-specific task lifecycles to these standards (e.g., ST.90 compliance), ensuring consistent telemetry and error handling.

Verification Method: Assess architecture documentation and conformity of the workflow implementation to enterprise lifecycle standards.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.5

Requirement: Implement controls for the management and monitoring of operational software, including batch and queued processing.

Relevance: Requires controls over operational software which includes asynchronous batch/queue systems used for large document processing.

Integration Tips: Apply lifecycle management and change controls to queueing systems, document runbooks for task processing and ensure secure configurations.

Verification Method: Review operational control records, change logs, and configuration management items for the queue/batch processing components.

Priority: High

6.2.3. R3: Per-request execution isolation and sandboxing for asynchronous tasks

OWASP ASVS Controls

V14.5

Requirement: Enforce per-request or per-tenant isolation using containers, sandboxes, or VMs and limit privileges of execution environments.

Relevance: Directly prescribes per-request/per-tenant isolation using containers/VMs/sandboxes to mitigate cross-tenant contamination and limit compromise blast radius.

Integration Tips: Use ephemeral containers or per-task sandboxes with minimal privileges and strict filesystem/network policies; ensure automatic teardown after task completion.

Verification Method: Review deployment architecture and conduct penetration tests that attempt cross-task/tenant access; verify teardown and privilege restrictions.

Level: V3 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-2

Requirement: Employ application partitioning and isolation techniques to separate execution environments and reduce the impact of compromise.

Relevance: Supports technical measures for partitioning execution to enforce strong isolation between requests and tenants for asynchronous tasks.

Integration Tips: Architect multi-tenant systems to enforce strong logical and physical separations (namespaces, containers, VMs) and apply strict inter-process communication controls.

Verification Method: Audit isolation configurations, run isolation tests and review CI/CD manifests for enforced partitioning (namespaces, cgroups, VPCs).

Priority: Critical

SA-11

Requirement: Require that acquired systems use secure deployment models that include isolation and sandboxing to mitigate threats.

Relevance: Mandates evaluation of acquired components for secure deployment including sandboxing which applies when integrating runtimes or model providers.

Integration Tips: Require vendor evidence of isolation, include sandboxing in procurement requirements, and perform acceptance testing prior to production use.

Verification Method: Review procurement artifacts and acceptance testing reports validating isolation features of acquired systems.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.14.2

Requirement: Ensure systems developed and supplied by third parties maintain separation and isolation to protect customer environments.

Relevance: Ensures third-party components uphold isolation guarantees when used as part of the execution environment for tasks.

Integration Tips: Include isolation requirements in supplier contracts and verify vendor-provided runtimes meet per-request isolation expectations through assessments.

Verification Method: Review supplier contracts and third-party assessment reports; validate vendor sandboxing capabilities via evidence or testing.

Priority: High

6.2.4. R4: Support for multi-format document ingestion and output preservation (PDF, DOCX, XML, etc.)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.10

Requirement: Validate and safely parse uploaded files; preserve content structure where needed while preventing dangerous constructs.

Relevance: Direct guidance on safe handling and parsing of multiple document formats while preserving necessary structure and preventing parsing-based attacks.

Integration Tips: Use well-maintained parsers, apply strict validation of file types and structure, and implement format-preserving transformation pipelines to retain formatting.

Verification Method: Code review of parser usage, fuzz testing against file parsers, and functional tests verifying formatting preservation across formats.

Level: V2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

PL-8

Requirement: Document supported data formats and handling procedures to ensure integrity and preservation of data across processing.

Relevance: Requires documenting supported formats and handling processes which is essential to ensure correct ingestion and output preservation.

Integration Tips: Maintain authoritative documentation of supported formats, transformation rules and fidelity guarantees; include fallbacks for unsupported constructs.

Verification Method: Review documentation and run test suites that verify supported-format round-trips and preservation of content/formatting.

Priority: High

SI-10

Requirement: Implement protections against malicious file content and ensure safe parsing and handling of document formats.

Relevance: Directly applicable to safe ingestion of varied document formats, requiring protections against malicious constructs embedded in files.

Integration Tips: Integrate malware scanning and sandboxed parsing for each file format, strip/validate macros in DOCX and sanitize embedded resources in PDFs/XML.

Verification Method: Verify scanning/sanitization pipelines via penetration tests and review detection/quarantine logs for malicious file handling.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.8.3

Requirement: Handle media and files according to classification rules; ensure preservation and controlled processing of information assets.

Relevance: Requires controlled handling of files/media and mapping of preservation needs to classification, relevant when processing customer documents with fidelity requirements.

Integration Tips: Classify incoming documents, apply processing protections per classification, and ensure handling procedures preserve required formatting and metadata.

Verification Method: Inspect classification policies and evidence that processing pipelines respect classification and preservation controls.

Priority: Medium

6.2.5. R5: Preserve domain-specific terminology, claim/legal phrasing, and formatting fidelity

OWASP ASVS Controls

V11.1

Requirement: Ensure systems preserve business-critical semantics and terminology across processing steps without introducing unauthorized alterations.

Relevance: Specifically addresses preservation of business-critical semantics and terminology, matching the need to keep legal phrasing and domain terms intact.

Integration Tips: Implement terminology glossaries, constrain transformation logic, and include acceptance tests verifying term preservation and exact phrasing for legal text.

Verification Method: Automated regression tests comparing original vs transformed texts for terminology fidelity and manual legal QA on representative samples.

Level: V3 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-13

Requirement: Protect the integrity of information during processing and transmission to preserve original content.

Relevance: Focuses on protecting integrity which is necessary to ensure original legal phrasing and terminology is not altered in transit or processing.

Integration Tips: Apply integrity controls (signatures, checksums) to document payloads across processing stages and audit transformations to detect unauthorized changes.

Verification Method: Verify integrity protection mechanisms (digital signatures, checksums) and compare hashes across processing stages.

Priority: High

AU-9

Requirement: Ensure audit records can demonstrate integrity of request/response content and any transformations applied.

Relevance: Enables traceability and proof that transformations preserved terminology/phrasing by recording transformation steps and artifacts.

Integration Tips: Record transformation metadata, versions of transformation models and checksums; provide audit trails showing exact transformations applied.

Verification Method: Inspect audit logs and transformation metadata to confirm provenance and integrity of outputs.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.10.1

Requirement: Use cryptographic controls to protect integrity and authenticity of information, especially where legal phrasing must be preserved.

Relevance: Mandates cryptographic controls that help guarantee authenticity and integrity of content that must preserve legal/claim phrasing.

Integration Tips: Use content signing to enable validation that delivered outputs match preserved originals where required by customers; log verification events.

Verification Method: Review cryptographic policy and evidence of signatures/checksums applied to preserved outputs.

Priority: High

6.2.6. R6: No-addition guarantee: outputs must not include commentary or reasoning

OWASP ASVS Controls

V11.3

Requirement: Implement controls to ensure outputs do not include unauthorized content or additional commentary beyond requested transformation.

Relevance: Directly addresses preventing unauthorized additions to outputs and enforces strict output constraints.

Integration Tips: Constrain model outputs with templates or post-processing filters to remove or flag commentary; implement policy enforcement checks before release.

Verification Method: Functional tests asserting that outputs contain no extra commentary; automated checks and manual spot-checks of outputs for violations.

Level: V3 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

PL-4

Requirement: Establish rules of behavior and acceptable use that define allowed transformations and outputs, preventing unauthorized additions.

Relevance: Requires documented rules that define acceptable output behavior and prohibit additions, aligning with non-addition guarantees.

Integration Tips: Define clear rules for permissible transformations, train operators and vendors on constraints and implement enforcement in change control and testing.

Verification Method: Review rules of behavior documentation and evidence of training; test system behavior against these rules.

Priority: High

SA-11

Requirement: Require vendors to demonstrate deterministic and constrained behavior of services, preventing unintended content generation.

Relevance: Mandates vendor demonstration of constrained behaviors which supports the no-addition requirement for integrated model services.

Integration Tips: Make deterministic behavior part of vendor acceptance tests; require proof of non-addition through test suites and model evaluation artifacts.

Verification Method: Review vendor test reports and perform independent testing to confirm outputs do not include extraneous commentary.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.1

Requirement: Define access and usage rules to ensure system outputs conform to business and legal requirements including content constraints.

Relevance: Supports defining access/usage controls and policies that limit who can change output behavior, helping enforce non-addition guarantees.

Integration Tips: Restrict configuration changes to authorized roles and apply change control/auditing to any update that could affect output behavior.

Verification Method: Audit access control lists and change logs for output-processing configuration changes.

Priority: Medium

6.2.7. R7: Full support for specified European languages and extensible support for Asian languages with strict BCP-47 validation

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.4

Requirement: Validate locale and language inputs, ensure correct encoding and adherence to accepted BCP-47 tags.

Relevance: Directly applies to validating language tags (BCP-47) and encoding which prevents malformed locale inputs and ensures correct processing of multilingual content.

Integration Tips: Enforce BCP-47 validation on all language inputs, normalize encodings to UTF-8, and maintain mapping tables for supported locales with graceful rejection of unsupported tags.

Verification Method: Unit tests for BCP-47 validation, fuzz tests with malformed locale inputs, and review of input validation code paths.

Level: V2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SI-10

Requirement: Enforce input validation for all externally supplied data, including locale and language identifiers, to prevent malformed inputs.

Relevance: Reinforces need to validate language identifiers and input formats as a security measure to prevent injection or parsing errors.

Integration Tips: Centralize input validation for language tags and reject or sanitize non-conforming tags; log and monitor attempts to submit invalid locales.

Verification Method: Review validation libraries and test cases; check logs for rejected locale inputs and handling behavior.

Priority: Medium

PL-8

Requirement: Document supported languages and validation rules for system inputs and outputs.

Relevance: Mandates documenting supported languages and validation rules which aids governance and ensures correct extensibility.

Integration Tips: Publish supported language lists and BCP-47 validation rules in API docs and incorporate them into OpenAPI schema validations.

Verification Method: Inspect documentation and API schemas to confirm supported languages and validation are declared and enforced.

Priority: Low

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.14.2.5

Requirement: Incorporate internationalization and localization considerations into secure development to handle language-specific requirements.

Relevance: Ensures internationalization requirements are included in secure development lifecycle, relevant for multilingual support and extensions.

Integration Tips: Include locale/unit tests, document supported languages and extension process, and require localization QA in release gates.

Verification Method: Check development artifacts for i18n requirements, test coverage for additional language support and localization QA results.

Priority: Low

6.2.8. R8: REST API exposing synchronous and asynchronous endpoints, OpenAPI 3.1 compliant

OWASP ASVS Controls

V12.2

Requirement: Publish and validate API schemas (e.g., OpenAPI) and ensure API endpoints conform to declared specs.

Relevance: Directly requires publishing and enforcing API schemas (OpenAPI), which aligns with OpenAPI 3.1 compliance and ensures predictable API behavior.

Integration Tips: Publish an OpenAPI 3.1 spec describing synchronous and asynchronous endpoints and enable request/response schema validation in gateways and runtime.

Verification Method: Validate that the published OpenAPI 3.1 spec matches implemented endpoints and perform contract tests against the schema.

Level: V2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-7

Requirement: Protect API boundaries with proper controls, enforce protocol and schema validation for endpoints.

Relevance: Mandates protecting API boundaries and enforcing protocol/schema validation which is necessary for secure REST API exposure.

Integration Tips: Implement API gateway controls enforcing TLS, schema validation, rate limiting and authentication for both sync and async endpoints.

Verification Method: Inspect gateway rules, schema validation logs, and perform boundary penetration tests to confirm protections.

Priority: High

IA-5

Requirement: Ensure APIs use strong authentication mechanisms consistent with secure API designs.

Relevance: Supports API security by requiring strong authentication mechanisms for endpoints defined in the OpenAPI spec.

Integration Tips: Define securitySchemes in OpenAPI (e.g., bearerAuth, mutual TLS) and enforce authenticator lifecycle and rotation practices.

Verification Method: Review OpenAPI securitySchemes and runtime enforcement of authentication methods.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.14.2.1

Requirement: Adopt secure development policies including API design standards and specification adherence.

Relevance: Requires secure development policies that include API design and specification adherence, supporting OpenAPI compliance.

Integration Tips: Embed OpenAPI 3.1 specification checks into CI/CD and require security review of API schema changes before deployment.

Verification Method: Review secure development policies and CI/CD pipeline evidence enforcing OpenAPI schema validation gates.

Priority: Medium

6.2.9. R9: Distinct status and result endpoints for task lifecycle tracking (ST.90 workflow compliance)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V12.3

Requirement: Ensure asynchronous operations expose task creation, status and result endpoints and protect them with proper authentication and authorization.

Relevance: Specifically requires separate endpoints for task creation/status/result and protecting them, directly matching ST.90 workflow needs.

Integration Tips: Design endpoints following ST.90 patterns (create -> status -> result), secure each endpoint with scoped tokens and validate idempotency and pagination for result retrieval.

Verification Method: API inspection and functional tests verifying separate endpoints and correct auth checks for each lifecycle operation.

Level: V2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-2

Requirement: Generate audit records for task lifecycle events (creation, status changes, result retrieval) to support traceability.

Relevance: Mandates logging of lifecycle events which supports ST.90 compliance by ensuring traceability of task states and results.

Integration Tips: Emit audit events on task create/status/update/result retrieval including actor, timestamp and task identifiers, and store them in tamper-evident logs.

Verification Method: Review audit logs and event schemas to confirm lifecycle events are recorded with required metadata.

Priority: High

CM-8

Requirement: Maintain records of system components and services including task lifecycle endpoints and their configurations.

Relevance: Supports maintainability and traceability of task endpoints by requiring inventories and configuration records.

Integration Tips: Catalog lifecycle endpoints in configuration management and include schema/versioning information for ST.90 compliance tracking.

Verification Method: Inspect component inventory and configuration records showing endpoint metadata and versions.

Priority: Low

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.1.2

Requirement: Ensure changes to operational services (including endpoints) are tracked and approved to maintain lifecycle integrity.

Relevance: Ensures endpoint changes that could affect task lifecycle semantics are controlled and tracked and thus preserves workflow compliance.

Integration Tips: Apply change control to endpoint definitions and lifecycle behavior; require tests validating ST.90 compliance as part of change approvals.

Verification Method: Review change records and test results demonstrating lifecycle behaviors post-change.

Priority: Medium

6.2.10. R10: Scalable task queueing, batching, and parallelization with deterministic performance targets

OWASP ASVS Controls

V12.1

Requirement: Implement performance considerations, rate limiting and protective measures to ensure API responds within acceptable latency targets.

Relevance: Supports rate limiting and performance controls needed to maintain deterministic performance across batching and parallelization.

Integration Tips: Define per-tenant and per-endpoint rate and concurrency limits, and design batching expectations into service contracts for predictable throughput.

Verification Method: Review rate-limit configurations and conduct deterministic performance benchmarks across varying load patterns.

Level: V2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-5

Requirement: Implement protections to ensure system availability under high loads, including traffic shaping and queue management.

Relevance: Addresses protection against overload and ensures queueing/batching strategies support availability and predictable performance.

Integration Tips: Implement traffic shaping, priority queues, backpressure and admission control to ensure deterministic processing for high-priority workloads.

Verification Method: Load tests simulating high throughput and verification of queueing policies and service-level performance under stress.

Priority: Critical

CP-10

Requirement: Plan for alternate processing capabilities to maintain deterministic performance targets under failure or high load scenarios.

Relevance: Provides for redundancy/alternate processing paths to maintain deterministic performance in contingencies.

Integration Tips: Design fallback compute clusters or degraded-mode processing rules and test failover to alternate processing to validate performance retention.

Verification Method: Failover exercises and performance tests on alternate processing paths validating deterministic behavior.

Priority: Low

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.1

Requirement: Documented operating procedures and responsibilities for maintaining availability and performance of information processing facilities.

Relevance: Ensures documented operational controls to manage scalable queueing and batching to achieve deterministic targets.

Integration Tips: Publish operational procedures for scaling, batching and parallel processing including SLOs and escalation paths when targets are missed.

Verification Method: Inspect runbooks and SLO reports demonstrating adherence to deterministic targets and operational responses.

Priority: Medium

6.2.11. R11: Efficient handling of high throughput with GPU utilization metrics and resource management

OWASP ASVS Controls

V14.6

Requirement: Monitor and limit resource usage for hosts and containers and expose metrics for specialized hardware usage.

Relevance: Directly relevant for monitoring GPU utilization, enforcing resource limits and exposing metrics for high-throughput systems.

Integration Tips: Expose GPU metrics (utilization, memory, temp), enforce cgroup/namespace limits and implement autoscaling policies tied to these metrics.

Verification Method: Inspect monitoring dashboards for GPU metrics and review enforcement of resource limits in container runtime configs.

Level: V2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

MA-4

Requirement: Perform maintenance and monitoring of system components including specialized hardware and collect utilization metrics.

Relevance: Mandates operational monitoring and maintenance of specialized hardware such as GPUs to ensure efficient throughput and reliability.

Integration Tips: Schedule preventive maintenance for GPU nodes, collect utilization logs and correlate with throughput metrics to optimize scheduling and scaling.

Verification Method: Maintenance logs, utilization history and evidence of corrective actions based on metrics.

Priority: Medium

CM-6

Requirement: Establish and document configuration settings for resource allocation and limits for hardware accelerators.

Relevance: Requires documented config settings for hardware resource limits which supports deterministic GPU resource management.

Integration Tips: Define and enforce configuration templates for GPU instance types, driver versions and allocation limits; embed in IaC for consistency.

Verification Method: Inspect configuration manifests and compare deployed settings to documented templates.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.1.1

Requirement: Maintain procedures for managing resources and monitoring system performance metrics.

Relevance: Requires documented procedures for resource management and metric collection relevant to GPU and throughput handling.

Integration Tips: Document GPU lifecycle, monitoring, alert thresholds and remediation actions; tie resource management into capacity planning.

Verification Method: Review procedures and evidence of adherence (alerts handled, capacity planning records).

Priority: Low

6.2.12. R12: Non-intrusive monitoring and observability (throughput, latency, error rates, resource usage) without content inspection

OWASP ASVS Controls

V14.7

Requirement: Collect non-sensitive telemetry for observability and avoid capturing sensitive content, relying on metadata and anonymized metrics.

Relevance: Directly prescribes collecting only non-sensitive telemetry and avoiding content inspection, matching the requirement to monitor without inspecting payloads.

Integration Tips: Instrument metadata-only metrics (request size, latency, error codes, anonymized tenant identifiers) and avoid logging payloads or PII in observability pipelines.

Verification Method: Audit telemetry pipelines and logs to ensure no payload content is captured; inspect dashboards and sample telemetry events.

Level: V2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-12

Requirement: Define retention and content of audit records; prefer metadata over content to reduce privacy exposure.

Relevance: Advises limiting audit record content to metadata which supports non-intrusive observability and privacy preservation.

Integration Tips: Define audit schemas that exclude content fields, implement PII redaction and document retention and access controls for telemetry data.

Verification Method: Review audit record schemas and retention policies; sample logs to confirm content exclusion and redaction.

Priority: High

SC-7

Requirement: Ensure monitoring systems do not expose sensitive information and enforce separation between content and observability channels.

Relevance: Reinforces separation between data processing and observability channels to prevent accidental leakage of content through monitoring.

Integration Tips: Segment monitoring networks, use service accounts with least privilege for telemetry ingestion, and avoid uploading raw content to monitoring backends.

Verification Method: Network and configuration review showing separation and least-privilege telemetry ingestion mechanisms.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.4

Requirement: Implement logging and monitoring while protecting personal data and avoiding unnecessary content capture.

Relevance: Mandates protective logging practices and aligns with requirement to avoid content inspection to protect privacy.

Integration Tips: Apply masking/anonymization techniques in logs, restrict access to monitoring data, and document what is collected and why.

Verification Method: Inspect logs for presence of PII/content, verify masking policies and access controls to monitoring systems.

Priority: High

6.2.13. R13: Strong authentication and authorization for API access (token-based, MFA, RBAC)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V2.1

Requirement: Implement secure token handling, strong authentication including MFA, and protect session tokens in APIs.

Relevance: Specifies secure token/session handling and MFA guidance applicable to API authentication and protection of tokens.

Integration Tips: Use short-lived JWTs or opaque tokens with refresh flows, secure storage of tokens, and revoke tokens upon suspicious activity.

Verification Method: Token lifecycle review, token revocation tests, and security review of token storage mechanisms.

Level: V2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

IA-2

Requirement: Employ multifactor authentication for network access to privileged functions and ensure the use of tokens and authenticators.

Relevance: Directly requires MFA and token use for privileged access which strengthens API access controls as requested.

Integration Tips: Require MFA for administrative API operations and issue scoped tokens for programmatic access with limited lifetimes and rotation policies.

Verification Method: Review authentication configuration, MFA enrollment records and test privileged API access requires MFA or equivalent controls.

Priority: Critical

AC-2

Requirement: Implement account management processes and RBAC to ensure authorized access to system resources.

Relevance: Mandates account management and RBAC which is central to fine-grained authorization for API access.

Integration Tips: Maintain automated provisioning/deprovisioning, role definitions, and least-privilege assignments for API consumer accounts.

Verification Method: Audit account lifecycle records and RBAC role assignments for appropriate least-privilege enforcement.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.2

Requirement: Manage user access rights and ensure appropriate authentication mechanisms including multi-factor where required.

Relevance: Requires management of access rights and supports RBAC enforcement and MFA for API users.

Integration Tips: Implement RBAC with least privilege, regular access reviews, and integrate MFA into identity providers used by the API.

Verification Method: Access reviews, RBAC policy audits and verification of MFA enforcement for targeted roles.

Priority: High

6.2.14. R14: Fine-grained access control and multi-tenant isolation (per-customer isolation options)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V14.5

Requirement: Enforce per-request or per-tenant isolation using containers, sandboxes, or VMs and limit privileges of execution environments.

Relevance: Prescribes technical isolation mechanisms (containers/VMs) needed to provide per-customer isolation options.

Integration Tips: Offer deployment options ranging from logical isolation to dedicated VMs/instances and enforce privilege separation and network ACLs.

Verification Method: Validate tenant deployment options and perform security tests verifying isolation boundaries.

Level: V3 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-2

Requirement: Employ application partitioning and isolation techniques to separate execution environments and reduce the impact of compromise.

Relevance: Directly supports per-customer isolation by mandating partitioning/isolation techniques to prevent tenant data/misuse crossover.

Integration Tips: Implement tenant namespaces, separate storage buckets or strong logical isolation and enforce network segmentation between tenants.

Verification Method: Isolation testing that attempts cross-tenant access and review of partitioning configurations and policies.

Priority: Critical

AC-3

Requirement: Enforce access control policies that allow fine-grained authorization decisions for tenants and resources.

Relevance: Requires enforcement mechanisms to make fine-grained authorization decisions, enabling per-customer control over resources.

Integration Tips: Implement policy decision/enforcement points supporting attribute-based or role-based access controls with tenant scoping.

Verification Method: Access enforcement testing with varied tenant roles and attributes to ensure correct authorization decisions.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.4

Requirement: Restrict access to information and application functions; enforce separation of duties and tenant isolation as needed.

Relevance: Requires restriction of access and supports tenant isolation and per-customer segregation of duties and access.

Integration Tips: Design access control policies enforcing tenant scope, and include per-customer configuration options to enable dedicated tenancy where required.

Verification Method: Policy and configuration review showing tenant-scoped access controls and separation of duties assignments.

Priority: High

6.2.15. R15: End-to-end encryption for data in transit and at rest, with customer-controlled keys where required

OWASP ASVS Controls

V6.1

Requirement: Ensure strong transport layer protection (TLS) and encryption for data at rest with key management best practices.

Relevance: Specifies transport and storage encryption practices necessary to implement end-to-end protections.

Integration Tips: Enforce TLS with strong cipher suites, use server/client certificates, and ensure data-at-rest encryption integrates with secure key management.

Verification Method: TLS configuration scans, encryption-at-rest verification and review of key management integration and logs.

Level: V2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-13

Requirement: Protect the integrity of information during processing and transmission to preserve original content.

Relevance: Supports cryptographic protections for integrity and confidentiality in transit/at rest, aligning with end-to-end encryption goals.

Integration Tips: Implement authenticated encryption for stored data and integrity checks (MACs) for transmitted payloads; separate keys per tenant where feasible.

Verification Method: Cryptographic usage review, key separation validation and integrity verification tests.

Priority: High

MP-6

Requirement: Control access to storage and media and protect media using encryption when required.

Relevance: Reinforces protecting stored media via encryption and controlling access which aligns with end-to-end confidentiality requirements.

Integration Tips: Apply disk/volume encryption supplemented by application-level encryption for sensitive payloads and restrict administrative access to keys.

Verification Method: Encryption evidence for storage volumes and access control reviews for media/key management.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.10.1

Requirement: Use cryptographic controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information; support customer-managed keys where required.

Relevance: Mandates cryptographic controls and explicitly mentions supporting customer-managed keys, aligning with end-to-end encryption and CMEK requirements.

Integration Tips: Offer CMEK integration with KMS/HSM solutions, enforce TLS 1.2+/mTLS for transit and AES-GCM/modern ciphers for rest encryption with key separation per tenant.

Verification Method: Review encryption configurations, key access controls and evidence of CMEK usage and separation for tenants requesting it.

Priority: Critical

6.2.16. R16: Secure key management, secrets handling, and cryptographic lifecycle controls

OWASP ASVS Controls

V6.6

Requirement: Use secure key storage, rotate keys, use HSMs or KMS and prevent secrets leakage in applications and logs.

Relevance: Provides application-level guidance for preventing secrets leakage and using secure storage/KMS/HSM which is essential for secure secrets handling.

Integration Tips: Use environment-separated secret stores, avoid embedding secrets in code or logs, and enforce least-privilege access to secrets.

Verification Method: Secret scanning, code reviews for secret leaks, and inspection of KMS/HSM use and access controls.

Level: V3 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

KM-1

Requirement: Establish a key management program that covers lifecycle including key generation, distribution, rotation, storage and destruction.

Relevance: Directly mandates a comprehensive key management program covering lifecycle stages essential to secure keys and secrets.

Integration Tips: Implement centralized KMS/HSM, define key policies, automate rotation and retirement, and limit key access to authorized services and personnel.

Verification Method: Review KMS configurations, rotation logs, key access policies and evidence of controlled key destruction.

Priority: Critical

SC-12

Requirement: Enforce cryptographic key establishment and management processes to secure communications and stored data.

Relevance: Supports managed key establishment and distribution processes necessary for secrets lifecycle controls across systems.

Integration Tips: Design secure key exchange protocols, use authenticated channels for key distribution and integrate management workflows with organizational PKI.

Verification Method: Review key establishment protocols, PKI artifacts and evidence of secure distribution channels.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.10.1.2

Requirement: Implement key management practices to protect cryptographic keys throughout their lifecycle.

Relevance: Requires institutionalization of key management practices that align with secure lifecycle management for secrets.

Integration Tips: Document key handling procedures, require HSM for high-value keys, and include keys in asset and change management processes.

Verification Method: Examine key management procedures and records of key lifecycle events and custody.

Priority: High

6.2.17. R17: Comprehensive audit logging and immutable tamper-evident trails for requests, tasks, and outputs

OWASP ASVS Controls

V11.4

Requirement: Record and protect audit records for business-critical operations and provide tamper-evident storage for logs.

Relevance: Specifically requires recording and protecting audit records for business-critical events, matching need for immutable trails for requests/tasks/outputs.

Integration Tips: Implement signed log entries, centralized secure logging pipelines, and role-based access to audit stores to ensure integrity and traceability.

Verification Method: Inspect signed log entries, centralized log pipelines and role-based access policies; validate tamper-evidence features.

Level: V2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-2

Requirement: Generate audit records for defined events and ensure they contain sufficient information to establish what events occurred.

Relevance: Requires generation of audit records for events, essential for tracking requests, tasks and outputs to create traceable trails.

Integration Tips: Define the list of auditable events (task create/update/result, retrieval), capture actor, timestamp, and task identifiers, and ensure logs are immutable.

Verification Method: Audit log inspection verifying required fields are present and completeness of recorded events.

Priority: Critical

AU-9

Requirement: Protect audit information from unauthorized access, modification, and deletion to ensure its integrity.

Relevance: Requires protecting audit data which supports producing immutable, tamper-evident trails for critical events.

Integration Tips: Apply encryption at rest, strict access controls and retention policies for audit data; implement monitoring for any audit data access.

Verification Method: Review access logs for audit repositories and confirm protections against modification/deletion are in place.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.4

Requirement: Implement logging and monitoring of events and ensure logs are protected from tampering.

Relevance: Mandates protection of logs from tampering and implies controls to make trails tamper-evident and durable.

Integration Tips: Store logs in WORM or append-only storage with strict access controls and cryptographic integrity checks to detect tampering.

Verification Method: Review log storage configurations, integrity checks, and access controls; attempt tamper simulations where safe.

Priority: High

6.2.18. R18: Data retention, deletion, and data subject rights (GDPR) support including deletion/export of originals and outputs

OWASP ASVS Controls

V11.5

Requirement: Implement data retention, deletion and data subject rights support in application design including export and erasure.

Relevance: Specifically instructs implementing retention/deletion and DSAR support in application design aligned with GDPR needs.

Integration Tips: Provide per-customer retention policies, implement efficient deletion pipelines and ensure exported data formats preserve necessary metadata for portability.

Verification Method: DSAR acceptance tests, retention policy audits and verification of deletion across store tiers.

Level: V2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

MP-4

Requirement: Implement controls to manage media access, retention and sanitization including secure deletion.

Relevance: Addresses secure deletion and media sanitization processes needed to fulfill erasure obligations across storage and backups.

Integration Tips: Define secure deletion procedures, track data locations (including backups) and ensure processes include certification of destruction where required.

Verification Method: Inspect deletion logs, backup retention management and evidence of secure sanitization actions.

Priority: High

PL-8

Requirement: Document retention policies and procedures to support legal and privacy obligations.

Relevance: Requires documented retention policies which are necessary to govern GDPR-related retention and deletion behavior.

Integration Tips: Publish retention schedules, map data flows to retention rules and integrate DSAR processing into documented procedures.

Verification Method: Review published retention policies and alignment with implemented retention/deletion mechanisms.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.18.1.4

Requirement: Ensure appropriate measures for privacy and protection of PII including rights to access, rectification and erasure.

Relevance: Directly covers GDPR-like data subject rights and requires measures for access/rectification/erasure of PII and related data assets.

Integration Tips: Implement APIs and workflows to export and delete originals/outputs on request, document retention schedules and verify erasure from backups where feasible.

Verification Method: Review DSAR handling procedures, test deletion/export flows and evidence of correlated backup sanitization.

Priority: Critical

6.2.19. R19: Input validation, content sanitization, and protection against malicious files (malware scanning, safe parsing)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.10

Requirement: Validate and safely parse uploaded files; preserve content structure where needed while preventing dangerous constructs.

Relevance: Directly relevant to validating/sanitizing inputs and securely parsing diverse file formats to prevent exploitation via malicious files.

Integration Tips: Implement file-type validation, sanitize files (strip macros/active content), and parse in isolated sandboxes with strict resource constraints.

Verification Method: Run fuzzing and file-format attack tests and validate quarantine/alerting behavior on malicious samples.

Level: V2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SI-3

Requirement: Employ mechanisms to detect and protect against malicious code and files including scanning and quarantine.

Relevance: Mandates malware scanning and quarantine processes which are core to protecting ingestion pipelines from malicious files.

Integration Tips: Integrate AV/malware scanning at ingestion points, maintain signatures and heuristic engines, and route suspect files to isolated sandboxes for analysis.

Verification Method: Review malware scanning configs, detection logs and quarantine handling; test with benign test malware samples (EICAR).

Priority: Critical

SA-11

Requirement: Ensure third-party components handle input validation and parsing safely and are tested for malicious inputs.

Relevance: Requires vendors/components to be tested for safe parsing which is crucial when ingesting many document formats via third-party libraries.

Integration Tips: Require vendor security assessment evidence for parsers and include parser fuzzing in acceptance tests.

Verification Method: Review vendor assessment reports and parser test/fuzzing results.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.2

Requirement: Implement anti-malware controls and procedures for handling potentially malicious files.

Relevance: Requires organizational anti-malware measures and procedures complementing technical scanning to handle malicious files.

Integration Tips: Document malware handling playbooks, assign responsibilities for investigation and integrate AV outputs into incident workflows.

Verification Method: Operational evidence of malware incidents handling and periodic testing/audits of anti-malware coverage.

Priority: High

6.2.20. R20: Deterministic model behavior controls and testing for terminology fidelity and non-addition properties

OWASP ASVS Controls

V11.2

Requirement: Apply automated testing to ensure business logic correctness and that outputs conform to specified behavior.

Relevance: Directly mandates automated testing for functional correctness which applies to verifying deterministic model outputs and fidelity constraints.

Integration Tips: Create test harnesses to run deterministic test suites against models for terminology fidelity and non-addition; include regression tests in CI/CD.

Verification Method: Review automated test results, CI/CD runs and acceptance criteria demonstrating deterministic outcomes and fidelity checks.

Level: V3 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SA-11

Requirement: Require vendors to test and demonstrate system behavior including functional correctness and deterministic outputs.

Relevance: Mandates vendor-provided testing evidence that the model behaves deterministically where required and meets fidelity constraints.

Integration Tips: Include deterministic behavior and fidelity tests in vendor SLAs and acceptance tests; require reproducibility artifacts and model versioning.

Verification Method: Examine vendor test artifacts and reproduce tests locally to confirm deterministic behaviors.

Priority: High

CA-2

Requirement: Perform security assessments including functional testing to validate system behavior meets security and functional requirements.

Relevance: Mandates independent security assessments which can validate deterministic behaviors and non-addition guarantees as part of system assurance.

Integration Tips: Engage independent assessors to validate deterministic behavior and fidelity in realistic scenarios and include findings in remediation plans.

Verification Method: Assessment reports and evidence of remediation for any behavioral divergences found during security assessments.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.14.2.7

Requirement: Ensure that development processes include verification and testing of functional requirements including fidelity requirements.

Relevance: Requires verification/testing in development processes and applies to ensuring models meet fidelity and non-addition functional requirements.

Integration Tips: Incorporate fidelity test cases into development sprints and require acceptance sign-off for model behavior changes impacting terminology preservation.

Verification Method: Review development artifacts and test results demonstrating verification of fidelity requirements.

Priority: Medium

6.2.21. R21: Vendor/third-party integration controls and supply chain security (model providers, storage, telemetry)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V14.8

Requirement: Vet third-party components and providers for security posture and ensure secure integration.

Relevance: Specifies vetting of third-party components which applies to model providers and telemetry/storage integrations.

Integration Tips: Maintain an approved components list, perform SBOM/attestation checks and require secure integration templates (network, auth, telemetry) for suppliers.

Verification Method: Review SBOMs, vendor security questionnaires and integration checklists showing secure configurations.

Level: V2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SA-12

Requirement: Identify and manage supply chain risks and ensure acquired components meet security requirements.

Relevance: Directly mandates supply chain risk management for third-party model providers, storage and telemetry services used by the system.

Integration Tips: Perform vendor risk assessments, require security attestations and contractually enforce security requirements and SLAs for providers.

Verification Method: Vendor risk assessment records, contract clauses and evidence of periodic reassessments and attestations.

Priority: Critical

PM-22

Requirement: Implement enterprise supply chain risk management processes to monitor and control third-party risk.

Relevance: Mandates an enterprise approach to supply chain risk which strengthens vendor governance for model and storage integrations.

Integration Tips: Integrate supply chain risk tools, monitor vendor security metrics and escalate supply chain incidents through an established governance process.

Verification Method: Supply chain risk program documentation, monitoring dashboards and incident handling evidence for vendor-related issues.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.15.1

Requirement: Establish controls to manage supplier relationships and ensure security requirements are met.

Relevance: Requires supplier relationship controls ensuring that vendor integrations for models/storage/telemetry satisfy security requirements.

Integration Tips: Include security requirements in supplier contracts, perform onboarding security checks and require incident notification commitments.

Verification Method: Contract reviews, supplier audits and evidence of compliance with onboarding security checks.

Priority: High

6.2.22. R22: Incident response, backup & recovery, and disaster recovery plans for confidentiality and availability

OWASP ASVS Controls

V14.9

Requirement: Implement backup and recovery procedures and plan for resilient deployments to preserve confidentiality and availability.

Relevance: Prescribes resilience and recovery practices for hosts/containers relevant to maintaining confidentiality and availability of translation services.

Integration Tips: Implement automated backups, test restore processes for containers/hosts, and ensure backups are encrypted and access-controlled.

Verification Method: Backup/restore test records and resilience test results for containerized deployments.

Level: V2 | Priority: Medium

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

IR-4

Requirement: Establish incident handling capabilities including preparation, detection, analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.

Relevance: Directly requires incident handling capabilities necessary to respond to incidents impacting confidentiality and availability of translation services.

Integration Tips: Develop IR playbooks for data leakage, model compromise and availability incidents; run tabletop and live exercises to validate readiness.

Verification Method: IR plan review, exercise reports and evidence of incident detection and response activities.

Priority: Critical

CP-2

Requirement: Develop and maintain contingency plans to ensure continued operations and availability under disruptions, including performance degradation.

Relevance: Requires contingency planning to preserve availability and recovery capabilities which directly applies to backup & DR requirements.

Integration Tips: Maintain and test contingency plans, include data confidentiality measures during recovery and document escalation and recovery RTO/RPO targets.

Verification Method: Contingency plan evidence and results of DR exercises demonstrating recovery within RTO/RPO.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.17.1

Requirement: Implement information security continuity measures aligned with business continuity management to ensure availability and confidentiality.

Relevance: Mandates continuity measures ensuring information security during disruptions, covering backup and disaster recovery for availability/confidentiality.

Integration Tips: Integrate information security into BCP/DR plans, perform backup validation, and ensure encrypted backups with controlled access and recovery testing.

Verification Method: BCP/DR test reports, backup restore tests and evidence of security controls during recovery procedures.

Priority: High

6.3. Cross-Functional Security Controls

The following controls apply globally across all system components:

Logging and Audit

Description: Centralized, tamper-evident logging and audit trails covering auth, task lifecycle events, system changes and admin actions.

Applies to: All requirements (especially R2, R9, R17, R18, R20)

Implementation Guidance: Use append-only or WORM storage for audit logs, cryptographically sign critical entries, restrict access by RBAC, and integrate logs with SIEM for alerting and retention policies matching compliance needs.

Encryption and Key Management

Description: End-to-end encryption for data in transit and at rest, and a governed key management program supporting customer-controlled keys.

Applies to: R4, R5, R15, R16, R17, R18

Implementation Guidance: Adopt TLS/mTLS for transport, authenticated encryption for storage, centralized KMS/HSM for keys, enforce rotation and least-privilege access and provide CMEK options where requested.

Access Control and Identity

Description: Strong authentication (MFA), token management, RBAC and tenant-scoped authorization enforced across APIs and management planes.

Applies to: R8, R9, R13, R14

Implementation Guidance: Integrate with enterprise IdP for MFA and RBAC, issue short-lived scoped tokens for APIs, enforce attribute-based access control for tenant scoping and perform periodic access reviews.

Monitoring and Observability (Privacy-preserving)

Description: Collect operational telemetry (throughput, latency, error rates, resource usage) without capturing content or PII.

Applies to: R1, R10, R11, R12

Implementation Guidance: Instrument metadata-only metrics, mask/anonymize identifiers, separate telemetry channels from data channels and enforce retention and access controls for observability data.

Secure Development and Testing

Description: Secure SDLC processes including input validation, fuzzing, deterministic behavior testing and vendor/component vetting.

Applies to: R4, R19, R20, R21

Implementation Guidance: Include format parsers in security testing (fuzzing), require vendor security evidence, include deterministic and fidelity tests in CI/CD and gate releases on security test results.

6.4. Requirements Traceability Overview

This section demonstrates complete traceability from high-level requirements through threats to security controls and verification methods.

Coverage Summary: Traceability matrix contains 22 requirements. 20 requirements (90.9%) linked to threats. 22 requirements (100.0%) mapped to security controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001). Coverage: Complete.

Sample Traceability Mappings

The following table shows traceability for high-priority requirements:

Req ID	Requirement	Threats	Security Controls	Standards	Priority	Verification
REQ-001	Synchronous translation endpoint for sho…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Load and latency testing under expected and spike loads; review rate-limiter configuration and monitoring dashboards showing 95th/99th percentile latency within target.
REQ-002	Asynchronous translation workflow for la…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review operational control records, change logs, and configuration management items for the queue/batch processing components.
REQ-003	Per-request execution isolation and sand…	7 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Audit isolation configurations, run isolation tests and review CI/CD manifests for enforced partitioning (namespaces, cgroups, VPCs).
REQ-004	Support for multi-format document ingest…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Inspect classification policies and evidence that processing pipelines respect classification and preservation controls.
REQ-005	Preserve domain-specific terminology, cl…	2 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Inspect audit logs and transformation metadata to confirm provenance and integrity of outputs.
REQ-006	No-addition guarantee: outputs must not …	9 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Audit access control lists and change logs for output-processing configuration changes.
REQ-008	REST API exposing synchronous and asynch…	7 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review OpenAPI securitySchemes and runtime enforcement of authentication methods.
REQ-009	Distinct status and result endpoints for…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Inspect component inventory and configuration records showing endpoint metadata and versions.
REQ-010	Scalable task queueing, batching, and pa…	6 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Load tests simulating high throughput and verification of queueing policies and service-level performance under stress.
REQ-012	Non-intrusive monitoring and observabili…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Inspect logs for presence of PII/content, verify masking policies and access controls to monitoring systems.

Showing 10 of 22 requirements. See Appendix D for complete traceability matrix.

Traceability Statistics

• Total Requirements Tracked: 22
• Requirements Linked to Threats: 20 (90.9%)
• Requirements Mapped to Controls: 22 (100.0%)
• Average Controls per Requirement: 4.0
• Control Distribution by Standard:
  • NIST SP 800-53: 44 controls
  • OWASP ASVS: 22 controls
  • ISO 27001: 22 controls
• Verification Coverage: 100% (all requirements have verification methods)

---

7. AI/ML Security Requirements

This section addresses security requirements specific to artificial intelligence and machine learning components within the system. AI/ML systems introduce unique security challenges including prompt injection attacks, data poisoning, model theft, adversarial inputs, and bias vulnerabilities. This analysis identifies AI/ML components, assesses their security risks, and prescribes specialized controls to protect both the AI systems themselves and the data they process.

7.1. AI/ML Components Detected

This section identifies all AI/ML components within the system that require specialized security controls.
1. Translation Engine: An AI-powered service that utilizes natural language processing (NLP) to provide real-time and asynchronous translation of sensitive documents while preserving context and technical terminology.
2. Document Processing Module: This component employs machine learning models to ensure fidelity to legal phrasing and formatting during the translation process.

7.2. AI/ML Threat Model

Component	Identified Threats
Translation Engine	- Prompt injection
	- Data leakage through training data
	- Adversarial inputs
	- Model poisoning
	- Output filtering and sanitization issues
Document Processing Module	- Model inversion attacks
	- Bias and fairness considerations
	- Supply chain vulnerabilities

7.3. AI/ML Security Controls

Translation Engine

• Prompt Injection Prevention: Implement input sanitization and validation to prevent malicious prompts from altering the intended output.
  
• Input Validation for AI Inputs: Ensure strict validation for all inputs, particularly focusing on language tags and document formats to prevent malformed data submissions.
  
• Output Filtering and Sanitization: Apply content filtering mechanisms to ensure that no unintended commentary or reasoning is present in the output.
  
• Data Leakage Prevention: Implement measures to prevent the inclusion of personally identifiable information (PII) in training data, and ensure proper handling of sensitive documents during translation.
  
• Model Access Controls: Enforce strict access controls to the translation engine, ensuring that only authorized personnel can interact with the model.
  
• Rate Limiting and Abuse Prevention: Deploy rate limiting on API endpoints to mitigate the risk of abuse and ensure fair usage across clients.
  
• Monitoring for Adversarial Inputs: Implement logging and monitoring to detect unusual input patterns that may signify adversarial attacks.
  
• Model Versioning and Rollback Capabilities: Maintain version control for models to facilitate easy rollback in the event of detected vulnerabilities or issues.
  
• Supply Chain Security for Models: Conduct security assessments on third-party models and libraries used, ensuring they comply with security standards.

Document Processing Module

• Adversarial Input Monitoring: Monitor inputs for adversarial patterns that could lead to model inversion attacks or other vulnerabilities.
  
• Bias and Fairness Considerations: Regularly evaluate the model for biases and fairness issues, and implement corrective measures as necessary.
  
• Secure Key Management: Ensure that cryptographic keys used in the document processing module are securely managed and rotated regularly.

7.4. Integration with Existing Security Controls

AI/ML security controls must be integrated with existing security practices such as strong authentication, access control, encryption, and auditing. This includes leveraging multi-factor authentication (MFA) for API access, ensuring end-to-end encryption for data at rest and in transit, and implementing comprehensive logging that includes AI-specific actions and anomalies. These measures will enhance the overall security posture and ensure that AI/ML components are protected against unique threats.

7.5. AI/ML Monitoring Requirements

Monitoring Area	Description
Throughput	Monitor the number of translation requests processed per second to ensure performance targets are met.
Latency	Track the response time for both synchronous and asynchronous translations to identify performance bottlenecks.
Error Rates	Log and analyze error rates for predictive maintenance and improved reliability of the translation engine.
Resource Usage	Monitor GPU and CPU utilization to optimize resource allocation and identify potential performance issues.
Anomaly Detection	Implement anomaly detection mechanisms to identify unusual patterns in input data that may indicate adversarial attacks.

---

8. Compliance Requirements

This section identifies regulatory and legal compliance obligations applicable to the system based on data types, geographic scope, industry sector, and business operations. Compliance requirements drive specific security controls, data handling procedures, audit capabilities, and privacy protections. Non-compliance can result in significant legal penalties, reputational damage, and business disruption. This analysis maps applicable regulations to specific security requirements and operational procedures.

8.1. Applicable Regulations

In reviewing the requirements for the confidential translation engine, several regulations were identified based on the types of data being processed, the geographic scope of operations, and the nature of the business sector. The translation service will handle sensitive documents, including potentially personal data and legal information, which necessitates compliance with various global data protection regulations. Each of these regulations directly impacts the security controls implemented, data handling procedures, and operational processes to ensure privacy and confidentiality.

Regulation	Applicability Reason
GDPR	Applies because the system processes personal data of EU residents.
CCPA	Applies due to the handling of personal information of California residents.
HIPAA	Applicable if any health-related documents are processed, given confidentiality and security requirements.
PCI-DSS	Relevant if payment information is handled, ensuring protection of cardholder data.
SOX	Applies if any financial data related to public companies is processed, necessitating financial reporting integrity.
COPPA	Relevant if the service processes data related to children under 13 years of age.
Data Residency Laws	Applies if there are restrictions on where data can be stored or processed based on the geographic location of users.

8.2. Compliance Controls by Regulation

GDPR

• Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA): Conduct DPIAs for processing activities involving personal data.
  
• Data Minimization: Ensure only necessary personal data is processed.
  
• Access Controls: Implement strong access controls and authentication mechanisms to restrict access to personal data.
  
• Data Encryption: Use end-to-end encryption for data in transit and at rest.
  
• Data Subject Rights Management: Facilitate the exercise of data subject rights, including deletion and portability.

CCPA

• Consumer Rights Notices: Provide clear notices to consumers regarding their rights under CCPA.
  
• Opt-out Mechanism: Implement a mechanism for users to opt-out of the sale of their personal information.
  
• Data Access Requests: Enable consumers to request access to their personal information.

HIPAA

• PHI Safeguards: Implement physical, administrative, and technical safeguards for Protected Health Information (PHI).
  
• Business Associate Agreements: Ensure compliance through contracts with third-party service providers handling PHI.
  
• Incident Response Plan: Develop an incident response plan for potential breaches of PHI.

PCI-DSS

• Encryption of Cardholder Data: Encrypt cardholder data during transmission and storage.
  
• Access Control Measures: Restrict access to cardholder data to authorized personnel only.
  
• Regular Security Testing: Conduct vulnerability scans and penetration testing regularly.

SOX

• Internal Controls: Establish internal controls for financial reporting and data integrity.
  
• Audit Trails: Maintain comprehensive and secure audit trails of financial data access and modifications.

COPPA

• Parental Consent: Obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from children under 13.
  
• Data Retention Policies: Implement policies concerning the retention and deletion of children’s data.

Data Residency Laws

• Geographic Compliance: Ensure data is processed and stored within permitted jurisdictions.
  
• Data Transfer Mechanisms: Implement legal mechanisms for any cross-border data transfers.

8.3. Data Subject Rights

Right	Description
Right to Access	Individuals can request access to their personal data.
Right to Rectification	Individuals can request correction of inaccurate personal data.
Right to Erasure	Individuals can request deletion of their personal data.
Right to Restrict Processing	Individuals can request restrictions on processing their data.
Right to Data Portability	Individuals can request their data in a structured, commonly used format.

8.4. Privacy Requirements

Consent: Obtain explicit consent from users for processing personal data, especially for sensitive content.
Privacy Notices: Provide clear privacy notices detailing data processing activities and user rights.
Data Security Measures: Implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to ensure data security.

8.5. Audit and Monitoring Requirements

Logging: Maintain detailed logs of all data access, processing activities, and user consent.
Monitoring: Implement non-intrusive monitoring to track system performance and compliance without inspecting content.
Incident Reporting: Establish protocols for reporting data breaches to regulators and affected individuals.

8.6. Data Handling Rules

Retention: Retain personal data only as long as necessary for the purposes it was collected.
Deletion: Implement secure deletion processes for personal data no longer in use.
Data Minimization: Collect and process only the personal data that is necessary for the specified purposes.

8.7. Compliance Risk Assessment

In assessing the compliance landscape for the translation engine, several key risks have been identified that could jeopardize compliance with applicable regulations. It is essential to regularly evaluate these risks and implement appropriate measures to mitigate them.

Key Compliance Risks:

• Data Breaches: Potential for unauthorized access to sensitive documents or personal data, leading to compliance violations and reputational damage.
  
• Non-compliance with Consent Requirements: Failure to obtain proper consent for processing personal data could result in heavy fines under GDPR and CCPA.
  
• Inadequate Data Handling Procedures: Poor data retention and deletion practices can lead to non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection laws.

---

9. Security Architecture Recommendations

This section provides comprehensive security architecture guidance that integrates security controls into the system’s technical design. Security architecture defines how security principles, controls, and patterns are applied across system components to create a cohesive, defense-in-depth security posture. The recommendations address architectural principles, component-level controls, data protection strategies, and third-party integration security to ensure security is built into the system design.

9.1. Architectural Security Principles

Architectural security principles provide the foundational philosophy guiding all security design decisions. These principles ensure a consistent security posture across system components and guide selection and implementation of security controls so confidentiality, integrity and availability are achieved without compromising usability or performance.

• Zero Trust Architecture principles: Never trust, always verify — every access request (user, service, or device) is authenticated, authorized, and continuously validated regardless of network location. This reduces implicit trust in network boundaries and is essential for a multi-tenant cloud translation platform handling sensitive documents.
• Defense in Depth: Multiple, complementary layers of defensive controls (network, host, application, data, identity) are applied so that failure or bypass of one control does not result in total compromise. This minimizes single points of failure and limits blast radius.
• Principle of Least Privilege: Assign the minimum privileges required for users, services, and runtime processes. Scoped, short-lived credentials and RBAC/ABAC reduce risk from credential compromise and accidental misuse.
• Secure by Default / Secure by Design: Default configurations are hardened, features that increase risk are opt-in, and security is incorporated during design and SDLC phases (threat modeling, secure coding, testing), not bolted on afterwards.
• Separation of Duties: Critical operations (key management, audit access, admin actions) are split across roles so no single actor can both create and conceal malicious changes. This reduces fraud and insider risk.
• Fail Secure: On failure or degraded operation the system should preserve confidentiality and safety (e.g., deny access, stop exports, or operate in read-only/degraded mode) rather than fail open.
• Complete Mediation: Every access to resources is checked against an access control policy (no implicit caching of authorization decisions without re-validation for sensitive operations).
• Explicit Trust Boundaries & Minimal Attack Surface: Define clear boundaries (API gateway, internal services, GPU clusters) and reduce exposed interfaces; use API schemas and strong validation to minimize parsing and injection risks.
• Immutable & Auditable State: Use immutable infrastructure patterns, WORM/tamper-evident audit logs and content signatures to preserve provenance and detect tampering.
• Privacy-by-Design: Telemetry and logging avoid content capture; retention and data subject rights are baked into data flows with DSAR, deletion and export capabilities.
• Deterministic & Testable Behavior for Models: Constrain model behavior via templates, preprocessing and postprocessing, and maintain deterministic test harnesses to ensure fidelity and non-addition guarantees.

---

9.2. Component-Level Security Controls

Edge & Auth

Required Controls:

• Strong TLS termination with TLS 1.2+ (recommend TLS 1.3) and secure cipher suites.
• API gateway enforcing OAuth2/OIDC authentication and RBAC token validation.
• Rate limiting, per-tenant quotas, and protected endpoints with circuit breakers.
• Web Application Firewall (WAF) and DDoS protection.
• Initial malware scanning and safe parsing for uploaded files.
• Input validation and strict BCP-47 language tag checks at ingress.
• Mutual TLS (mTLS) for service-to-service communications where applicable.
• Logging of auth events and ingress metadata to tamper-evident audit store (no content).
• Key and secret protection (no secrets in plain environment variables; use secret stores).
• MFA for administrative and privileged API access.

Recommended Patterns:

• API Gateway (layered) with OAuth2/OIDC, JWT validation, rate limiting and schema validation.
• WAF + Cloud DDoS service in front of the gateway.
• Edge/admission proxy performing AV scanning and quarantining of suspicious uploads.
• mTLS for high-trust integrations (admin portals, partner systems).
• Use short-lived opaque tokens or JWTs with audience and scope claims and token introspection endpoints.

Frontend Layer

Required Controls:

• Secure TLS for client connections.
• Strict Content Security Policy (CSP) and secure cookies (HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite).
• Client-side input validation (but never as a substitute for server validation).
• SDKs and CLI signed and versioned; integrity verification for client artifacts.
• Least-privilege storage of credentials on client and avoidance of long-lived credentials.
• Logging of user interactions (metadata-only) to observability channels.
• Rate limiting per client and per-tenant.

Recommended Patterns:

• Hardened web UI behind the API Gateway with WAF rules.
• Public SDKs delivered via signed releases and package signing.
• Use OAuth2 Authorization Code flow with PKCE for SPAs and mobile clients.
• Static content served from CDN with enforced HTTPS and subresource integrity (SRI).

Application Services

Required Controls:

• OpenAPI 3.1 schema validation and enforcement at gateway and service layer.
• Strong authz checks per endpoint (RBAC/ABAC) and token scope enforcement.
• Input validation, schema-based sanitization, and safe parsing orchestration.
• Task lifecycle manager implementing ST.90 semantics with audit hooks.
• Idempotency and anti-replay protections for async task creation endpoints.
• Error handling that avoids leaking sensitive details and logs only metadata.
• Request/response size and rate limit enforcement, and circuit-breaker logic.

Recommended Patterns:

• API Gateway + internal service mesh (or API proxy) for routing and policy enforcement.
• Microservice segmentation: separate sync and async services with distinct resource policies.
• Centralized policy decision point (PDP) for access control and attribute-based rules.
• Contract-first development with CI/CD schema enforcement gates (OpenAPI checks).

Processing & Inference

Required Controls:

• Per-request ephemeral sandboxing (containers or microVMs) with strict privileges and automatic teardown.
• Enforced filesystem and network egress restrictions for sandboxes.
• Model input/output sanitization, deterministic inference harnesses, and output post-processing to remove commentary.
• GPU node isolation and cgroup resource limits to prevent noisy neighbor and leakage.
• Logging of model metadata and inference parameters (no payloads) to audit store.
• Signed model artifacts and strict model versioning controls; verify model provenance.
• Runtime integrity checks for container images and model binaries (image signing).

Recommended Patterns:

• Use ephemeral containers (e.g., Kata Containers, Firecracker microVMs) per document job for isolation.
• Hardware-backed attestation for GPU nodes where supported.
• Content-preserving transform pipeline (format-preserving conversion modules) with deterministic post-processing rules.
• Sidecar pattern for telemetry (non-content) and resource metrics.

Orchestration & Task Queue

Required Controls:

• Secure message queueing with encryption in transit and at rest.
• Task-level isolation metadata, tenant scoping in queue messages, and strict access control to queue operations.
• Deterministic scheduling and priority queues; admission control and backpressure.
• Signed task descriptors and integrity checks to detect tampering.
• Retry policies with exponential backoff, idempotency tokens and quarantining of failing jobs.
• Telemetry for queue length, task latencies and worker health (no payload contents).

Recommended Patterns:

• Use managed message services with fine-grained IAM (SQS, Kafka with RBAC, Pub/Sub) and queue encryption keys per environment.
• Orchestrator with autoscaling controllers tied to safe GPU metrics and latency SLAs.
• Separate queues for sync/low-latency path vs long-running async tasks.

Data Layer

Required Controls:

• End-to-end encryption of object storage (AES-256-GCM) with tenant segregation and BYOK/CMEK support via HSM/KMS.
• Tamper-evident, append-only audit logs (WORM) for request/task/audit trails.
• Fine-grained access controls: per-bucket/object IAM policies and attribute-based controls.
• Metadata DB with integrity protections and encryption at rest.
• Secure key lifecycle management using HSMs, with restricted administrator roles and audited key usage.
• Secure backups (encrypted) and documented secure deletion and sanitization procedures.

Recommended Patterns:

• Encrypted object storage buckets with per-tenant prefixes and separate encryption keys.
• Use KMS/HSM (FIPS 140-2/3) for root keys and support customer-managed keys (CMEK/BYOK).
• Immutable audit log store (WORM) with cryptographic signing (e.g., ledger service or append-only storage).
• Database Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) plus application-level encryption for highly sensitive fields.

Operations & Observability

Required Controls:

• Privacy-preserving telemetry collection: throughput, latency, error rates, GPU metrics; explicitly exclude payloads.
• Role-based access to monitoring and alerting consoles; audit access to observability data.
• Centralized SIEM ingest for auth and lifecycle events with tamper-evident storage.
• Alerting & capacity planning tied to autoscale controls; runbooks for SLO breaches.
• Log retention policies and log redaction/masking for any PII that may appear accidentally.

Recommended Patterns:

• Metrics pipeline with Prometheus/Grafana for metrics and alerting integration; separate pipeline for logs with centralized SIEM.
• Sidecar-exporter pattern on workers to expose GPU metrics and resource utilization.
• Use synthetic tests and SLA monitoring (synthetic short-strings translation) for continuous latency verification.
• Integrate incident response runbooks and automated playbooks for common incidents.

External Services

Required Controls:

• Strong supplier onboarding, vendor risk assessment and contractual SLAs that include security and incident notification obligations.
• Secure integration channels (OAuth, mTLS) and least-privilege service accounts.
• Isolation of vendor access to only the required resources and scoped audit logging of vendor activities.
• Vetting of third-party model providers for deterministic behavior and non-addition guarantees.

Recommended Patterns:

• Use a vendor gateway/proxy for third-party model calls to centralize auth, logging and egress control.
• Maintain SBOMs for third-party components and require signed attestations.
• Enforce network-level controls (VPC Service Controls/PrivateLink) to reduce public exposure.

---

9.3. Data Protection Strategy

Data Classification: Public, Internal, Confidential, Restricted

• Public: Non-sensitive product information and documentation intended for public consumption.
• Internal: Operational metadata, non-sensitive telemetry, and general logs (non-PII).
• Confidential: Customer metadata, task descriptors, aggregated telemetry with tenant identifiers (anonymized), and non-sensitive document metadata.
• Restricted: Original document contents, translation outputs, model inputs/outputs, encryption key material, and any PII within documents — highest protection level.

Encryption Requirements:

• In transit:
  • TLS 1.2 minimum, TLS 1.3 preferred; enforce TLS 1.3 for external clients where possible.
  • Use strong cipher suites (AEAD: AES-GCM, CHACHA20-POLY1305).
  • mTLS for sensitive integrations (admin APIs, vendor model proxies).
• At rest:
  • Object and DB storage: AES-256-GCM or equivalent authenticated encryption.
  • Use AEAD for all application-level encryption operations.
  • Key lengths: symmetric keys 256-bit; asymmetric keys RSA 3072+ (prefer RSA 4096 for archival/signing) or ECC P-384/Ed25519 for signatures.
  • HMAC/MACs: use SHA-256 or SHA-384 depending on context.
• Key management:
  • Centralized KMS with HSM-backed root keys (FIPS 140-2/3).
  • Per-tenant data encryption keys (DEKs) wrapped by KMS master keys (KEKs).
  • Support CMEK/BYOK with clear contractual controls and key separation.
  • Enforce key rotation (automated) and strong key usage policies (separation between storage keys and signing keys).

Retention Policies:

• Default behavior: only store originals/outputs for the minimum time required to complete tasks and for legally required retention.
• Per-tenant retention policy configurable (e.g., immediate delete on request, 7/30/90/365 days presets).
• Audit logs retention: maintain tamper-evident audit logs per compliance spec (e.g., 1-7 years depending on jurisdiction) with access controls and WORM storage.
• Backups: encrypted, tracked retention; retention aligned with primary data retention and subject to erasure procedures where feasible.
• DSAR and deletion: implement API and operational flows to export and delete originals/outputs and request removal from backups where practicable; document exceptions where deletion cannot be guaranteed (e.g., immutable backups beyond recovery window) and notify customer.

Handling Procedures:

• Access:
  • Enforce RBAC/ABAC with tenant scoping; require MFA for privileged operations.
  • Principle of least privilege applied to all service accounts and personnel.
  • All access to restricted data is logged to tamper-evident audit stores including actor, timestamp, justification and task id.
• Transmission:
  • Always encrypt documents in transit (TLS/TLS+application-level encryption for extreme confidentiality).
  • For external vendor/model calls, prefer on-premise/in-cloud isolated proxy, or require mTLS and content-less telemetry only.
• Storage:
  • Use per-tenant encrypted storage containers with separate keys where feasible.
  • Store only derived metadata when possible; minimize PII in system metadata.
  • Use application-level encryption for particularly sensitive fields (e.g., SSNs, PII extracted from documents).
• Deletion:
  • Logical deletion triggers immediate access revocation and removal from indexing.
  • Secure deletion pipeline that purges from object storage and attempts to remove from backups in line with retention policy; produce certification logs.
  • Implement retention/deletion job with audit trail and notification to tenant when deletion completes.
• Transformation & Model Inputs/Outputs:
  • Preprocess documents in ephemeral sandboxes; persist only when explicitly configured (or to support async tasks) with customer consent.
  • Postprocessing modules must sign outputs and record model version and transformation metadata.
  • Enforce non-addition by applying deterministic post-filters and validation checks before release.

---

9.4. Third-Party Integration Security

Identity Provider (IdP - OAuth2/OIDC)

Security Requirements:

• Support OAuth2 / OIDC with signed tokens and token introspection.
• Enforce MFA for administrative users and privileged API scopes.
• Support SCIM for automated provisioning and deprovisioning.
• Provide logs/audit for authentication events accessible to platform SIEM.

Risk Assessment: High - central to authentication and authorization; compromise leads to wide access.

Recommended Controls:

• Integrate via OIDC with signed JWT verification and trust anchors.
• Enforce short-lived tokens and automatic revocation on suspicious events.
• Limit scopes for service accounts and isolate admin authentication flows.
• Periodic audits of IdP configuration and logging integration with SIEM.

AV / Virus Scan Provider

Security Requirements:

• TLS-protected API for file scanning and quarantine responses.
• Signed attestations for scanning results and ability to operate in offline/sandboxed mode.
• Minimal data sharing — only hashes/metadata where possible.

Risk Assessment: Medium-High - necessary for safety but receives document metadata/binaries; vendor compromise could create privacy exposure.

Recommended Controls:

• Proxy AV calls through an internal service to minimize exposure and centralize logging.
• Require contractual DLP and non-retention commitments for scanned binaries.
• Quarantine suspicious files in isolated sandboxes and require admin review.

Model Provider (third-party)

Security Requirements:

• Mutually authenticated API (mTLS) or OAuth2 with strict scopes.
• Ability to operate via a proxied model endpoint so raw documents are not sent unless contractually allowed.
• Vendor attestations of model behavior, deterministic testing artifacts and provenance (SBOM, training data controls where possible).

Risk Assessment: Critical - models may introduce data leakage risk or produce non-deterministic content; vendor compromise risks data exposure.

Recommended Controls:

• Prefer running models in customer-dedicated or provider-supplied isolated environment with BYOK and network isolation.
• Require model signing, deterministic test suites, and legal SLA on confidentiality.
• Proxy all model calls through a vendor gateway with egress control, logging (metadata only) and enforce non-content telemetry.

GPU/Compute Provider

Security Requirements:

• Strong isolation controls for VM/container instances and support for hardware attestation.
• Network segmentation and private connectivity (VPC, PrivateLink).
• Telemetry for GPU utilization and health metrics.

Risk Assessment: High - underlying compute compromise can expose document data or keys.

Recommended Controls:

• Use ephemeral GPU nodes, encrypted volumes, and host attestation.
• Isolate tenant workloads and use ephemeral credentials for node access.
• Patch management and driver verification policies.

Cloud Object Storage Provider

Security Requirements:

• SSE with customer-managed keys (CMEK) support.
• Fine-grained ACLs and bucket-level IAM.
• Private endpoint support (VPC endpoints).

Risk Assessment: High - primary storage for originals/outputs; misconfiguration is a common risk.

Recommended Controls:

• Enforce bucket policies to prevent public access and require encryption.
• Use per-tenant prefixes/buckets and key separation.
• Monitor bucket ACL changes and enforce drift detection.

KMS / HSM Vendor

Security Requirements:

• FIPS 140-2/3 validated HSMs for high-value keys.
• API for key lifecycle with strict audit logging and role separation.
• Support for BYOK/CMEK and split key custody models.

Risk Assessment: Critical - keys are root of trust; compromise results in mass data exposure.

Recommended Controls:

• Use HSM-backed KMS for master keys; restrict key usage via IAM and policies.
• Implement multi-person control for key deletion/rotation.
• Audit key usage and integrate with SIEM and alerting.

Metrics / Alerting Provider (Prometheus/Grafana/Cloud Monitoring)

Security Requirements:

• Secure ingestion endpoints (TLS), least-privilege service accounts.
• Data anonymization and no raw content ingestion.

Risk Assessment: Medium - telemetry can inadvertently include sensitive identifiers if misconfigured.

Recommended Controls:

• Enforce telemetry schemas that exclude content; automatic redaction rules.
• Access controls for dashboards and alerts; disable exporting of raw logs.
• Retention policies and encryption at rest.

Logging S3 or Secure Logging Service

Security Requirements:

• WORM/append-only options for audit logs.
• Encrypted storage and fine-grained IAM for log access.

Risk Assessment: High for audit integrity; if logs are tampered with, traceability suffers.

Recommended Controls:

• Use WORM or signed log entries and ledger-like storage.
• Separate access roles for log ingestion vs log reading; require approvals for log export.

Customer Cloud Storage (optional external storage)

Security Requirements:

• Signed, time-limited URLs and access tokens for customer storage integration.
• Data residency alignment and private connectivity.

Risk Assessment: Medium - may expand attack surface and complicate retention/deletion guarantees.

Recommended Controls:

• Verify identity of external buckets and enforce strict access controls.
• Encryption of data both at rest and in transit; limit platform access scope to necessary objects.
• Periodic verification of retention/deletion behavior.

---

Additional Integration Guidance (cross-cutting):

• For each external provider require a vendor security questionnaire, evidence of certifications (ISO27001, SOC2, FIPS where relevant), contractual clauses for incident notification, right-to-audit and data handling restrictions.
• Implement egress controls and single outbound proxy for third-party calls to enable traffic inspection (metadata-only), throttling and centralized logging.
• Maintain an approved-vendor list and SBOMs for third-party integrations.

---

Note: The controls above are aligned to the provided requirement mapping (OWASP, NIST, ISO27001) and recommend ASVS level L3. They prioritize confidentiality and deterministic functional guarantees (preservation/non-addition) while balancing performance constraints for synchronous low-latency paths and scalable asynchronous processing. Implementing these principles and controls will produce a defensible, privacy-preserving, and auditable confidential translation platform.

---

10. Implementation Roadmap

This section provides a prioritized, phased approach for implementing the security controls identified throughout this analysis. The roadmap organizes security measures into logical phases based on risk, dependencies, and resource availability, ensuring critical security gaps are addressed first while building a foundation for comprehensive security coverage.

10.1. Prioritization Framework

Prioritization is critical for effective security implementation as it ensures that resources are allocated to address the most pressing vulnerabilities and compliance requirements first, thereby reducing risk and enhancing system resilience. By organizing security controls into implementation phases, organizations can strategically address critical threats, meet regulatory deadlines, and manage technical and resource constraints.

Prioritization Criteria:

• Risk Level: Controls addressing critical and high-risk threats (identified through threat modeling) are prioritized first
• Compliance Deadlines: Regulatory requirements and compliance deadlines influence immediate priority
• Technical Complexity: Controls requiring foundational infrastructure are implemented early to enable subsequent controls
• Dependencies: Controls that other security measures depend upon are prioritized accordingly
• Resource Availability: Implementation considers the availability of skilled personnel, tools, and budget
• Business Impact: Controls protecting business-critical functions and data receive higher priority

These criteria work together to create a logical implementation sequence that balances security needs with practical constraints, ensuring that the most critical vulnerabilities and compliance requirements are addressed promptly while laying the groundwork for further security enhancements.

10.2. Phased Implementation Plan

Phase: IMMEDIATE

Timeline: 0-1 months

Rationale: Immediate implementation focuses on addressing critical vulnerabilities, establishing basic security measures, and ensuring compliance with any blockers that could impede business operations or regulatory requirements.

Controls to Implement:

• Implement short-lived access tokens and refresh token policing
• Enforce basic encryption for sensitive data in transit and at rest
• Establish strong multi-factor authentication for all high-privilege actions
• Address critical vulnerabilities identified in threat modeling

Dependencies:

• Establishment of basic access control measures

Phase: SHORT-TERM

Timeline: 1-3 months

Rationale: These controls enhance security by building upon immediate measures, focusing on improving access controls, authentication, and monitoring to mitigate identified threats effectively.

Controls to Implement:

• Enhance authentication with comprehensive multi-factor authentication
• Deploy role-based access controls across management interfaces
• Implement comprehensive logging and monitoring for all system actions
• Strengthen API security with input validation and HTTPS protocols

Dependencies:

• Completion of initial encryption measures
• Basic access control measures in place

Phase: MEDIUM-TERM

Timeline: 3-6 months

Rationale: Medium-term initiatives focus on strengthening security posture through advanced threat detection and testing, as well as ensuring that third-party integrations meet security standards.

Controls to Implement:

• Develop advanced threat detection capabilities
• Automate security testing in the CI/CD pipeline
• Conduct third-party security audits and assessments
• Enhance data protection strategies, especially for high-value data

Dependencies:

• Enhanced authentication and logging mechanisms

Phase: LONG-TERM

Timeline: 6-12 months

Rationale: Focus on strategic security initiatives that enhance overall security maturity, incorporate cutting-edge security controls, and ensure continuous improvement.

Controls to Implement:

• Implement security maturity enhancements and continuous improvement programs
• Deploy advanced AI/ML security controls
• Conduct comprehensive penetration testing on a regular basis
• Launch security awareness and training programs for all employees

Dependencies:

• Completion of medium-term security testing and data protection enhancements

Phase: ONGOING

Timeline: Continuous

Rationale: Maintain ongoing operations that ensure the security program adapts to evolving threats and compliance requirements, while continuously monitoring and improving security posture.

Controls to Implement:

• Conduct continuous security monitoring and threat intelligence gathering
• Implement regular patch management cycles
• Perform compliance audits and ensure alignment with regulatory changes
• Maintain incident response readiness and conduct regular exercises

Dependencies:

• Established incident response plans and monitoring systems

10.3. Resource Requirements

Skills: Security engineers, Security architects, Web developers, Compliance specialists; Recommended tools: SIEM solutions for logging and monitoring, Vulnerability scanners for testing, Encryption libraries for data protection, API management tools for secure interfaces; Estimated time effort: Approximately 3-6 months for initial phases, with ongoing efforts extending resources as per system complexity and requirements.

---

11. Verification and Testing Strategy

11.1. Testing Approach

Integrate security testing throughout the software development lifecycle (SDLC) with an emphasis on continuous security practices. Balance automated scanning with manual evaluations to prioritize high-risk areas based on business impact, adhering to shift-left security principles by incorporating security testing earlier and continuously. This approach ensures vulnerabilities are identified and remediated promptly, reducing potential risks and enhancing overall security posture.

11.2. Testing Methods

Method	Frequency	Tools
STATIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (SAST)	Every commit/build	SonarQube, Semgrep, Checkmarx, CodeQL
DYNAMIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (DAST)	Nightly/weekly	OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite, Acunetix
DEPENDENCY SCANNING	Every build	Snyk, Dependabot, OWASP Dependency-Check
SECRETS SCANNING	Every commit	TruffleHog, GitLeaks, GitHub Secret Scanning
CONTAINER/INFRASTRUCTURE SCANNING	Every deployment	Trivy, Clair, Prowler, ScoutSuite
PENETRATION TESTING	Quarterly or before major releases	Custom scripts, Metasploit, Burp Suite Pro
SECURITY CODE REVIEW	For critical features	GitHub/GitLab code review, security checklists
COMPLIANCE SCANNING	Continuous	AWS Config, Azure Policy, Cloud Custodian

11.3. Compliance Verification

Multi-standard compliance (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) will be verified through automated tools and manual checks against regulatory requirements such as GDPR, CCPA, and PCI-DSS. Audit preparation will involve ensuring documentation and evidence collection for external audits, including logs, test results, and compliance reports. Recommendations will include engaging third-party auditors for comprehensive evaluations to confirm adherence to security and compliance standards.

11.4. Continuous Monitoring

Implement Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) for real-time monitoring, supported by Intrusion Detection/Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS) to identify and mitigate threats. All logs will be aggregated and analyzed for anomalies, with integration into incident response processes to ensure prompt action against security events. This continuous monitoring strategy will enable proactive identification of potential breaches and enhance the overall security posture.

11.5. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

• Mean time to detect (MTTD) security issues
  
• Mean time to remediate (MTTR) vulnerabilities
  
• Percentage of critical vulnerabilities patched within SLA
  
• Security test coverage percentage
  
• False positive rate in automated scanning
  
• Compliance audit pass rate

11.6. Mapping of Testing Methods to Security Controls

• SAST: Validates input validation, injection flaws, hardcoded secrets (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001)
  
• DAST: Tests for authentication, authorization, XSS, CSRF, and SQL injection (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53)
  
• Dependency Scanning: Assesses supply chain security (NIST SP 800-53)
  
• Secrets Scanning: Ensures cryptographic protection is in place (OWASP ASVS)
  
• Container Scanning: Validates configuration management (NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001)
  
• Penetration Testing: Covers all high-risk controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53)
  
• Security Code Review: Focuses on authentication, authorization, crypto implementations (OWASP ASVS)
  
• Compliance Scanning: Verifies compliance-related controls (ISO 27001, GDPR, and other regulations)

This comprehensive verification and testing strategy ensures that the translation engine meets security requirements while adhering to necessary compliance standards, ultimately enhancing its security posture and reliability.

---

12. Validation Report

This section presents a comprehensive validation of the security requirements generated throughout this analysis. The validation evaluates the requirements against five key dimensions: completeness, consistency, correctness, implementability, and alignment with business objectives. This assessment ensures that the security requirements are comprehensive, technically sound, and actionable for implementation teams.

12.1. Overall Assessment

The overall validation score reflects the quality and completeness of the security requirements across five critical dimensions. Each dimension is scored from 0.0 to 1.0, with 1.0 representing excellent coverage and 0.0 indicating significant gaps.

Overall Score: 0.83/1.0

Validation Status: ✅ PASSED

The security requirements have met the quality threshold (≥0.8) and are ready for implementation. The requirements demonstrate comprehensive coverage, technical accuracy, and alignment with business objectives.

The validation assesses:

• Completeness: Are all identified security concerns adequately addressed?
• Consistency: Do requirements align with each other without contradictions?
• Correctness: Are controls appropriate for the identified risks and correctly applied?
• Implementability: Are requirements specific, actionable, and feasible to implement?
• Alignment: Do security requirements align with business requirements and objectives?

12.2. Dimension Scores

Dimension	Score	Status
Completeness	0.90	✅
Consistency	0.75	⚠️
Correctness	0.85	✅
Implementability	0.75	⚠️
Alignment	0.90	✅

Score Interpretation: - ✅ 0.8-1.0: Excellent - ⚠️ 0.7-0.79: Acceptable (minor improvements needed) - ❌ <0.7: Needs significant improvement

12.3. Detailed Feedback

Consistency

/typo: R1 text contains “sub-second (≤41s) latency” which contradicts the business requirement (≤1s). Correct specs/SLAs and ensure all references use the same latency target (≤1s for synchronous calls). 2) Make the “No-addition guarantee” implementable: add explicit, measurable acceptance criteria and enforcement mechanisms. Examples: (a) require a glossary/terminology mapping and exact-match checks for critical phrases; (b) specify a test harness that verifies zero additional sentences or parenthetical commentary in outputs (automated diff-based checks and token-level assertions); (c) require model constraints (forced decoding, constrained vocab/phrase preservation, template-driven output or post-processing filters) and define allowable transformations with examples. Define failure thresholds and remediation steps. 3) Strengthen AI/ML data governance: add explicit requirements that customer content NEVER be used to train models unless opt-in with documented consent and contractual controls. Specify model training data provenance, retention rules, and a prohibition or strict controls for customer data in training sets (DPIA for any training using customer data). Add detection/logging for inadvertent retention in model caches or logging pipelines. 4) Add privacy-preserving ML controls: consider Differential Privacy (DP) or rigorous data minimization for any aggregate learning, and require privacy risk assessment and mitigations for model updates. Specify requirements for synthetic data or isolated, customer-dedicated model fine-tuning if offered. 5) Runtime trust and attestation for model execution: for high-confidentiality customers, define options for dedicated tenant compute or hardware-based enclaves (SGX/TDX or confidential VMs) with remote attestation and auditable measurement of runtime images. Map these options to per-customer isolation choices and contractual SLAs. 6) Model provenance and SBOM for ML components: require cryptographic hashes for model weights, SBOM for all ML libraries and model artifacts, and supplychain attestations from model providers. Require a documented process for model upgrades, approval gates, and rollback (already present but require explicit signed/hashed artifacts as acceptance criteria). 7) Expand deterministic-model testing specifics: define deterministic test vectors, seed/temperature controls, allowed decoding configurations (e.g., temperature=0, beam search or forced tokenization), pass/fail criteria, and acceptance thresholds. Require automated CI gating with reproducibility artifacts (input->output hash logs) and periodic re-validation after model updates. 8) Telemetry safe-schema and DLP: require explicit telemetry schema that excludes payload content. Define allowed / disallowed fields, hashing vs. anonymization rules, sampling policies for metadata, and retention and access controls for telemetry. Add periodic telemetry audits to prove no content leakage. 9) DSAR and deletion across tiers & backups: define end-to-end deletion requirements including persistence in temporary storage, caches, model input caches, logs, and backups. State RTO/RPO expectations for deletion, and require proof of deletion (or documented limitations and compensating controls) for immutable backups. Add automated DSAR API-level testing. 10) Incident response specifics for ML incidents: extend IR playbooks with ML-specific incidents: model-exfiltration, prompt-injection leading to data exfil, poisoning, and model-behavior regressions. Require capability to immediately disable/rollback models and quarantine affected artifacts. 11) More explicit metrics and SLA definitions: define exact SLO/SLA targets and measurement windows for synchronous (≤1s 95th/99th percentiles) and async (expected throughput, queue latency percentiles). Add observable metrics required for each SLA and escalation thresholds. 12) ST.90 and workflow compliance: provide a mapping doc that explicitly ties API endpoints, status codes, lifecycle events and audit fields to ST.90 fields. Include idempotency keys, task TTLs, and retention requirements for results vs. original payloads. 13) Clarify

Correctness

, reduce ambiguity for dev teams, and close the remaining gaps for extremely sensitive/high-assurance customers.

Implementability

of supply-chain controls: require vendor security questionnaires, penetration test evidence, contractual right-to-audit clauses, and frequency of reassessments. For model providers, require threat-model-specific attestations (e.g., training data origin, differential privacy usage, vulnerabilities discovered/resolved). 14) Hardening the safe parsing chain: require parsing within isolated sandboxes (per-file), explicit stripping of active content (macros/scripts), and a formal verification/fuzz-testing program for parsers with defined coverage targets and CVE-tracking. 15) Key/Secrets operational specifics: require separation of keys for different tenants, enforce KMS/HSM-backed CMEK options, automated key-rotation schedules, dual control for key destruction, and logs of key usage with restricted access. Define OOTB policies and acceptance tests for key rotation without service interruption.

Small editorial/

---

Appendix A: Original Requirements Document

Confidential Translation Engine Requirements

We need to build a translation service that provides confidential document translation with strict privacy guarantees for sensitive content.

Key Features:

1. Translation Services
   - Synchronous translation for short texts (real-time, less than 1 second)
   - Support for UI fields, short messages, and office correspondence
   - Direct response without task creation
   - Asynchronous translation for large documents
   - Support for long-running translations (multi-page PDFs, XML, DOCX)
   - Scalable task execution and isolation per-request

2. Language Support
   - Full support for European languages used in patent workflows (EN/DE/FR/ES/IT/NL/PT/PL etc.)
   - Extensible to Asian languages (ZH/JA/KO)
   - Strict input validation for language tags (BCP-47)

3. Document Processing
   - Translation must preserve technical terminology, claim structure, legal phrasing, and formatting
   - Guaranteed non-addition of commentary or reasoning content in output
   - Support for patent-domain fidelity

4. API & Integration
   - REST API, OpenAPI 3.1 compliant
   - Separation between synchronous text endpoints and asynchronous processing endpoints
   - Status and result endpoints for task tracking
   - ST.90 compliant workflow for asynchronous processing

5. Performance
   - Real-time translation for short strings (≤1 second)
   - Efficient batching and parallelization under high load
   - Stable deterministic performance

6. Monitoring & Observability
   - Track throughput, latency, error rates, GPU utilization
   - Non-intrusive monitoring without content inspection

The platform will process sensitive documents requiring strict confidentiality guarantees. It will handle translation requests, task management, and provide API access for integration with other systems.

---

Appendix B: Glossary

Term	Definition
ASVS	Application Security Verification Standard (OWASP)
STRIDE	Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege
SAST	Static Application Security Testing
DAST	Dynamic Application Security Testing
MFA	Multi-Factor Authentication
RBAC	Role-Based Access Control
PII	Personally Identifiable Information
PHI	Protected Health Information
GDPR	General Data Protection Regulation
HIPAA	Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
PCI-DSS	Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard

---

Appendix C: Complete Threat List

This appendix contains the complete list of all identified threats with full descriptions and mitigation strategies. Threats are organized by risk level for easy reference.

Critical Risk Threats

THR-001 - Edge & Auth

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: High | Impact: High
• Risk Level: Critical
• Description: Attackers steal or reuse OAuth2/OIDC tokens, API keys, or session cookies (via phishing, token leakage, or compromised client environments) to impersonate legitimate users and call synchronous and asynchronous endpoints.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce short-lived access tokens and refresh token policing, use mutual TLS for service-to-service auth, implement token binding or DPAPI for browser storage, require MFA for high-privilege actions, monitor for anomalous token usage and implement token revocation/blacklisting. Protect client secrets in secure storage and rotate keys regularly.

THR-014 - Orchestration & Task Queue

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: High | Impact: High
• Risk Level: Critical
• Description: Attackers submit many large asynchronous translation tasks or specially crafted tasks to exhaust queue/backlog resources and worker capacity, degrading service for legitimate asynchronous workflows and potentially affecting sync path.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement per-customer quotas, enforce task size/time limits, prioritize low-latency sync workers, use queue backpressure mechanisms, autoscaling with cost/attack-aware policies, and employ admission control that validates tasks before enqueueing.

THR-023 - High-Level Requirement: Real-time translation performance

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: High | Impact: High
• Risk Level: Critical
• Description: Attackers exploit the strict ≤1 second sync latency by crafting many small rapid requests to exhaust low-latency worker pools and degrade real-time service.
• Mitigation Strategy: Reserve capacity for sync path, implement strict per-key/tenant low-latency quotas, circuit breakers, token-based prioritization, and autoscale separately for sync and async. Apply backpressure and rate-limiting tuned for real-time SLAs.

High Risk Threats

THR-002 - Edge & Auth

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Malicious file uploads bypass malware scanning or safe parsing (e.g., crafted PDFs, polyglots, or archive bombs) to implant backdoors or trigger upstream processing faults that corrupt conversion/translation steps.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use multi-engine AV scanning (sandbox detonation) and strong file type validation, unpack and scan nested archives, size/time limits, run ingestion in constrained sandboxes with resource/time caps and content normalization before handing to core processing. Implement static parsers and runtime exploit mitigation (ASLR, cgroups).

THR-003 - Edge & Auth

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Misconfigured TLS or TLS termination at edge permits MITM or use of weak ciphers allowing eavesdropping on uploaded document binaries or tokens in transit.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce TLS 1.2+/1.3 only, strong cipher suites, HSTS, certificate pinning for critical clients, regular certificate/key rotation and automated monitoring for certificate expiry or rogue CA alerts. Log and alert on downgraded or weak-negotiation sessions.

THR-004 - Edge & Auth

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: High | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: High
• Description: API key stuffing, excessive synchronous requests, or large uploads overwhelm the edge gateway causing degraded latency for real-time translations and blocking legitimate users.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement per-tenant and per-API-key rate limits, adaptive throttling, challenge-response (CAPTCHA or proof-of-work) for anonymous heavy usage, upstream WAF and cloud DDoS protections, and prioritized queues for low-latency paths.

THR-005 - Frontend Layer

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Malicious or compromised SDK/CLI distributed to customers tricks users into sending credentials or files to attacker-controlled endpoints, impersonating the official frontend.
• Mitigation Strategy: Sign SDK binaries and release artifacts, publish checksums, use verified distribution channels, provide documented SDK validation steps, and maintain supply-chain monitoring. Encourage customers to use signed clients and provide a private package feed option.

THR-007 - Application Services

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Injection attacks (SQL/NoSQL, OS command, template injection) via unvalidated request fields or document metadata corrupt metadata DB or allow arbitrary code execution in orchestration components.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use parameterized queries/ORMs, strict schema validation, sanitize inputs, employ least-privilege DB accounts, protect against unsafe deserialization, and run code with minimal rights. Apply static analysis and runtime WAF rules tuned to API shapes.

THR-008 - Application Services

• Category: Repudiation
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Insufficient or tamperable audit trails allow users or attackers to deny or erase actions (task submissions, deletions, translations) impacting compliance and non-repudiation requirements.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement tamper-evident, WORM audit logs (append-only storage), cryptographic signing of audit entries, separate write-only logging service, synchronized timestamps, and retention policy enforcement. Use HSM-backed signing for critical events.

THR-010 - Processing & Inference

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Sensitive content leaks to third-party model providers or to other tenants (multi-tenant GPU memory persistence, model provider telemetry, or proxied inference calls) exposing confidential document contents.
• Mitigation Strategy: Prefer on-prem or private models; if using third-party models, use VPC/ private endpoints, encrypt in transit, minimize data sent (prompt redaction), sign and audit requests, use BYOK and strict contractual controls, and ensure GPU memory is zeroed between jobs. Disable telemetry by default and use proxied, audited access patterns.

THR-011 - Processing & Inference

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Model poisoning or malicious third-party models insert commentary, change claims, or alter translations to add/extract meaning—violating the ‘no-addition’ and patent fidelity requirements.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use vetted, signed models, perform model integrity checks, keep training/inference pipelines isolated, run deterministic validation tests for domain fidelity (e.g., automated consistency checks against known patent structures), apply human review gates for high-risk outputs, and maintain provenance of model versions.

THR-012 - Processing & Inference

• Category: Elevation of Privilege
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Escaping sandboxed execution (container breakout or misconfigured VM) allows attacker-controlled preprocessing code or maliciously crafted documents to gain host-level privileges and access other tenants’ data or keys.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use strong sandboxing: minimal host footprint, kernel hardening, seccomp/AppArmor, separate network namespaces, immutable images, regular CVE patching, run workloads as non-root, and enforce strict resource limits. Use workload attestation and isolate tenants onto separate nodes for critical workloads.

THR-013 - Processing & Inference

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Residual data in GPU or worker memory is accessible to subsequent jobs (data remanence), causing cross-request data leakage.
• Mitigation Strategy: Zero-memory between jobs, enforce strict worker lifecycle (one job per worker where required), use encryption-in-use technologies where possible, and schedule high-sensitivity jobs on dedicated hardware. Regularly audit memory handling procedures.

THR-015 - Orchestration & Task Queue

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: An attacker manipulates task descriptors in the queue (e.g., altering target storage, outputs path, or status) to redirect outputs to attacker-controlled storage or cause data corruption.
• Mitigation Strategy: Sign and verify task descriptors, encrypt sensitive descriptor fields, enforce RBAC checks during orchestration, validate storage endpoints against allow-lists, and maintain immutable task audit trails.

THR-016 - Data Layer

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Compromise or misconfiguration of cloud object storage or metadata DB exposes encrypted or unencrypted originals, outputs, or audit logs to attackers (e.g., public bucket or improper ACLs).
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce bucket policies and deny public access by default, server-side encryption with BYOK keys, enforce bucket-level logging and access monitoring, implement least-privilege IAM for storage access, and periodic automated checks for misconfigurations.

THR-017 - Data Layer

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: An attacker or insider modifies or deletes encrypted outputs, metadata, or audit logs to cover tracks or alter history (including retention/deletion flows) undermining non-repudiation and compliance.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use immutable, append-only audit storage (WORM), separate key management for logs, enforce multi-person approval for critical deletions, and retain encrypted off-site backups. Monitor for abnormal deletion patterns and implement alerting.

THR-018 - Data Layer

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Compromise of KMS/HSM keys or improper BYOK processes allows attackers to decrypt stored outputs and originals.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use HSM-backed key storage, strict key access controls, split knowledge procedures for BYOK import/export, hardware-backed attestation, rotate keys regularly, and limit cryptographic operations to dedicated services with strong logging and audited access.

THR-019 - Operations & Observability

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Logs, traces, or error messages inadvertently include sensitive document snippets or PII causing exposure when logs are stored in less-protected systems.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement structured logging with scrubbing/redaction, avoid logging full payloads, apply log sanitization pipelines, restrict log access, encrypt logs at rest, and separate telemetry roles from data access roles. Provide safe debug modes requiring elevated approval.

THR-020 - Operations & Observability

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: An attacker tampers with metrics/alerting to suppress alerts or hide resource abuse (e.g., disable GPU utilization alarms to continue exfiltration), delaying detection.
• Mitigation Strategy: Secure metrics ingestion with authentication and integrity checks, maintain redundant alerting channels, log metric changes, and monitor metrics of metrics (meta-alerting). Restrict who can modify alerting rules and require approvals.

THR-021 - External Services

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Third-party AV/Model providers exfiltrate scanned document metadata or inference prompts via telemetry or logs, leading to sensitive data disclosure off-platform.
• Mitigation Strategy: Contractual controls (SCM), limit data shared to minimal required fields, encrypt and proxy requests through internal gateways, sign and audit outbound calls, perform security assessments of vendors, and disable vendor telemetry. Use on-prem or private models where confidentiality is required.

THR-022 - External Services

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Compromised Identity Provider (IdP) or federated trust relationships allow attacker to mint valid tokens and access the translation service as legitimate customers.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use strong federation controls, periodic assertion verification, configure short token lifetimes and token revocation hooks, rely on IdP audit logs, and adopt multi-factor authentication and anomaly detection for IdP accounts. Implement brokered trust with strict claims validation.

THR-025 - High-Level Requirement: Document Processing (fidelity & non-addition)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Model hallucination or automated post-processing adds commentary or reasoning sections to translated outputs (violating non-addition requirement) or intentionally inserts data from training sources.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement deterministic, rule-based post-processing to strip non-domain text, enforce structure-preserving translation heuristics, set model constraints/decoding penalties for additions, run automated fidelity checks comparing input/output structure, and require human validation for legally critical documents.

THR-028 - Processing & Inference

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Crafted documents (e.g., extremely complex DOCX/XML with nested objects) intentionally trigger expensive preprocessing and inference loops consuming GPU/CPU leading to resource exhaustion.
• Mitigation Strategy: Introduce preprocessing complexity checks, document complexity scoring and rejection, cost-estimation and cap enforcement, per-request resource limits, and sandbox timeouts. Implement queuing priority and deferred processing for expensive inputs.

THR-029 - Data Layer

• Category: Repudiation
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Inadequate retention/deletion workflows leave copies of documents or outputs after customer-requested deletion, violating compliance and allowing later evidence of earlier content.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement and verify retention policies, maintain deletion provenance and proof-of-deletion logs signed with HSM keys, delete or re-encrypt backups per policy, and provide customers verifiable deletion receipts. Test deletion workflows periodically.

THR-030 - External Services

• Category: Elevation of Privilege
• Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: A compromised cloud vendor control plane or misconfigured IAM roles grants attackers escalated privileges in cloud-managed services (e.g., ability to start instances or access storage), enabling large-scale data exfiltration or service tampering.
• Mitigation Strategy: Adopt least-privilege IAM, separate accounts for critical services, enforce service control policies and SCPs, use monitoring for privileged actions, require approval workflows for infrastructure changes, and tightly control cross-account trust.

THR-032 - Application Services / Data Layer

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Broken access control (e.g., missing tenant checks, weak RBAC) permits an authenticated user to access or modify other tenants’ tasks, results, or metadata (IDOR).
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce strong multitenancy boundaries, server-side authorization checks on every resource access, use tenant-scoped credentials, automated access-control tests, and periodic access reviews.

THR-034 - Processing & Inference

• Category: Elevation of Privilege
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Weak internal service auth between application services and processing nodes allows a compromised service to call GPU/back-end APIs and perform privileged actions (e.g., access to KMS or other tenants’ jobs).
• Mitigation Strategy: Use mTLS with mutual authentication for internal RPC, short-lived certificates, service identity enforcement, strict role-based policies for service accounts, and isolate sensitive APIs behind additional gateways with authorization policies.

THR-036 - All Components / Architecture Requirements

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Insider threat (malicious employees or contractors) with privileged access to logs, keys, or storage exfiltrate sensitive documents or enable abuse via misconfiguration.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce least privilege, strong background checks, just-in-time privileged access, session recording for sensitive actions, separation of duties, comprehensive audit logging with anomaly detection, and strict contractual and legal controls.

Medium Risk Threats

THR-006 - Frontend Layer

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Client-side XSS or compromised UI allows modification of language tags or request payloads leading to malformed or malicious requests reaching backend endpoints, potentially bypassing BCP-47 validation or triggering processing vulnerabilities.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce CSP, sanitize all UI inputs, use secure frameworks with templating auto-escaping, implement server-side validation of BCP-47 tags and payloads, and use same-site cookies and CSRF tokens.

THR-009 - Application Services

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Excessive API responses or debug endpoints leak metadata or partial content (e.g., translation outputs, language tags, filenames) to unauthorized callers via misconfigured RBAC or open endpoints.
• Mitigation Strategy: Harden APIs: require authorization checks for all endpoints, minimize metadata returned, apply field-level access controls, disable debug endpoints in production, and implement robust API schema validation and response filtering.

THR-024 - High-Level Requirement: Language Support & Input Validation

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Malformed BCP-47 language tags or deliberately crafted tags trigger parser bugs or route requests to incorrect models, causing incorrect translation or possible crash/injection into model pipeline.
• Mitigation Strategy: Strict BCP-47 validation server-side with canonicalization, reject unknown tags, use robust parsing libraries, fuzz tests for language tag parser, and log/alert on unknown/rare tags.

THR-026 - API & Integration (OpenAPI endpoints)

• Category: Repudiation
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Lack of signed requests or immutable logs at API level allows clients to repudiate performed actions or deny submitted content (e.g., claims that translation was not requested).
• Mitigation Strategy: Sign critical API requests/responses (e.g., webhook HMAC), persist request payload hashes in WORM logs, require non-repudiation controls for legal workflows, and provide verifiable receipts to callers.

THR-027 - Orchestration & Task Queue

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Task metadata (status endpoints) allow enumeration of tasks across tenants if identifiers are predictable, leaking workflow patterns or metadata.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use cryptographically random task IDs, enforce authorization on status endpoints, minimize metadata exposed publicly, and implement tenant-scoped resource identifiers.

THR-031 - Frontend Layer / Application Services

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: CSRF attacks on authenticated user sessions cause unauthorized translation submissions or status queries on behalf of users.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement anti-CSRF tokens for web clients, enforce same-site cookies, require authentication headers (not cookie-only) for APIs, and validate origin/Referer headers for browser-based flows.

THR-033 - Monitoring & Observability / External Services

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Sending telemetry to third-party monitoring services without filtering may inadvertently forward sensitive telemetry or aggregated patterns that enable reconstruction of document metadata.
• Mitigation Strategy: Sanitize telemetry before export, use internal metrics aggregation with export filters, pseudonymize identifiers, and contractually restrict third-party use of telemetry. Use encrypted channels and role-based access to telemetry dashboards.

THR-035 - High-Level Requirement: Monitoring & Observability

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Over-collection of telemetry or misconfigured monitoring agents consume CPU/GPU resources on processing nodes, impacting translation throughput and latency.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use lightweight, sampled telemetry, off-host collectors, limit scraping frequency, and isolate monitoring to separate CPU/GPU cycles. Monitor agent performance and have emergency disable switches for monitoring agents.

Total Threats: 36

---

Appendix D: Complete Requirements Traceability Matrix

This appendix provides complete end-to-end traceability from requirements through threats to controls and verification.

Full Traceability Table

Req ID	Requirement	Category	Sensitivity	Threat IDs	Security Controls	Priority	Verification	Status
REQ-001	Synchronous translation endpoint for short texts w…	Translation Services / Performance	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-004 +7	[OWASP] V12.1, [NIST] RA-5, [ISO27001] A.12.1 +1	Critical	Load and latency testing under expected and spike loads; review rate-limiter configuration and monitoring dashboards showing 95th/99th percentile latency within target., Inspect operational procedures/runbooks and evidence of duty assignment; audit incidents against procedures to confirm adherence.	Pending
REQ-002	Asynchronous translation workflow for large docume…	Translation Services / Task Management	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-004 +7	[OWASP] V12.3, [NIST] SI-4, [ISO27001] A.12.5 +1	Critical	Review operational control records, change logs, and configuration management items for the queue/batch processing components., Assess architecture documentation and conformity of the workflow implementation to enterprise lifecycle standards.	Pending
REQ-003	Per-request execution isolation and sandboxing for…	Security / Execution Isolation	High	THR-001, THR-007, THR-012 +4	[OWASP] V14.5, [NIST] SC-2, [ISO27001] A.14.2 +1	Critical	Audit isolation configurations, run isolation tests and review CI/CD manifests for enforced partitioning (namespaces, cgroups, VPCs)., Review procurement artifacts and acceptance testing reports validating isolation features of acquired systems.	Pending
REQ-004	Support for multi-format document ingestion and ou…	Document Processing / Data Management	High	THR-003, THR-007, THR-009 +7	[OWASP] V5.10, [NIST] PL-8, [ISO27001] A.8.3 +1	Critical	Inspect classification policies and evidence that processing pipelines respect classification and preservation controls., Verify scanning/sanitization pipelines via penetration tests and review detection/quarantine logs for malicious file handling.	Pending
REQ-005	Preserve domain-specific terminology, claim/legal …	Translation Quality / Domain Fidelity	High	THR-011, THR-025	[OWASP] V11.1, [NIST] SC-13, [ISO27001] A.10.1 +1	Critical	Inspect audit logs and transformation metadata to confirm provenance and integrity of outputs., Review cryptographic policy and evidence of signatures/checksums applied to preserved outputs.	Pending
REQ-006	No-addition guarantee: outputs must not include co…	Translation Quality / Compliance	High	THR-009, THR-011, THR-015 +6	[OWASP] V11.3, [NIST] PL-4, [ISO27001] A.9.1 +1	Critical	Audit access control lists and change logs for output-processing configuration changes., Review vendor test reports and perform independent testing to confirm outputs do not include extraneous commentary.	Pending
REQ-007	Full support for specified European languages and …	Language Support / Input Validation	Medium	THR-006, THR-023, THR-024	[OWASP] V5.4, [NIST] SI-10, [ISO27001] A.14.2.5 +1	High	Review validation libraries and test cases; check logs for rejected locale inputs and handling behavior., Unit tests for BCP-47 validation, fuzz tests with malformed locale inputs, and review of input validation code paths.	Pending
REQ-008	REST API exposing synchronous and asynchronous end…	API & Integration	Medium	THR-001, THR-004, THR-005 +4	[OWASP] V12.2, [NIST] SC-7, [ISO27001] A.14.2.1 +1	Critical	Review OpenAPI securitySchemes and runtime enforcement of authentication methods., Review secure development policies and CI/CD pipeline evidence enforcing OpenAPI schema validation gates.	Pending
REQ-009	Distinct status and result endpoints for task life…	Task Management / Integration	Medium	THR-001, THR-005, THR-006 +7	[OWASP] V12.3, [NIST] AU-2, [ISO27001] A.12.1.2 +1	Critical	Inspect component inventory and configuration records showing endpoint metadata and versions., Review change records and test results demonstrating lifecycle behaviors post-change.	Pending
REQ-010	Scalable task queueing, batching, and parallelizat…	Performance / Scalability	Medium	THR-008, THR-014, THR-015 +3	[NIST] SC-5, [OWASP] V12.1, [ISO27001] A.12.1 +1	Critical	Load tests simulating high throughput and verification of queueing policies and service-level performance under stress., Inspect runbooks and SLO reports demonstrating adherence to deterministic targets and operational responses.	Pending
REQ-011	Efficient handling of high throughput with GPU uti…	Infrastructure / Monitoring	Medium	THR-014, THR-020, THR-023 +4	[OWASP] V14.6, [NIST] MA-4, [ISO27001] A.12.1.1 +1	High	Inspect configuration manifests and compare deployed settings to documented templates., Maintenance logs, utilization history and evidence of corrective actions based on metrics.	Pending
REQ-012	Non-intrusive monitoring and observability (throug…	Monitoring & Observability	High	THR-009, THR-010, THR-014 +7	[OWASP] V14.7, [NIST] AU-12, [ISO27001] A.12.4 +1	Critical	Inspect logs for presence of PII/content, verify masking policies and access controls to monitoring systems., Audit telemetry pipelines and logs to ensure no payload content is captured; inspect dashboards and sample telemetry events.	Pending
REQ-013	Strong authentication and authorization for API ac…	Authentication & Access Control	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-003 +7	[NIST] IA-2, [OWASP] V2.1, [ISO27001] A.9.2 +1	Critical	Access reviews, RBAC policy audits and verification of MFA enforcement for targeted roles., Audit account lifecycle records and RBAC role assignments for appropriate least-privilege enforcement.	Pending
REQ-014	Fine-grained access control and multi-tenant isola…	Access Control / Multi-Tenancy	High	THR-005, THR-010, THR-012 +7	[NIST] SC-2, [ISO27001] A.9.4, [OWASP] V14.5 +1	Critical	Access enforcement testing with varied tenant roles and attributes to ensure correct authorization decisions., Validate tenant deployment options and perform security tests verifying isolation boundaries.	Pending
REQ-015	End-to-end encryption for data in transit and at r…	Cryptography / Data Protection	High	THR-001, THR-003, THR-007 +7	[ISO27001] A.10.1, [OWASP] V6.1, [NIST] SC-13 +1	Critical	TLS configuration scans, encryption-at-rest verification and review of key management integration and logs., Cryptographic usage review, key separation validation and integrity verification tests.	Pending
REQ-016	Secure key management, secrets handling, and crypt…	Cryptography / Key Management	High	None	[NIST] KM-1, [ISO27001] A.10.1.2, [OWASP] V6.6 +1	Critical	Review key establishment protocols, PKI artifacts and evidence of secure distribution channels., Secret scanning, code reviews for secret leaks, and inspection of KMS/HSM use and access controls.	Pending
REQ-017	Comprehensive audit logging and immutable tamper-e…	Audit & Compliance	High	THR-004, THR-008, THR-009 +7	[NIST] AU-2, [ISO27001] A.12.4, [OWASP] V11.4 +1	Critical	Audit log inspection verifying required fields are present and completeness of recorded events., Review log storage configurations, integrity checks, and access controls; attempt tamper simulations where safe.	Pending
REQ-018	Data retention, deletion, and data subject rights …	Data Lifecycle / Compliance	High	THR-007, THR-009, THR-012 +7	[ISO27001] A.18.1.4, [OWASP] V11.5, [NIST] MP-4 +1	Critical	DSAR acceptance tests, retention policy audits and verification of deletion across store tiers., Inspect deletion logs, backup retention management and evidence of secure sanitization actions.	Pending
REQ-019	Input validation, content sanitization, and protec…	Input Handling / Security	High	THR-002, THR-005, THR-006 +7	[OWASP] V5.10, [NIST] SI-3, [ISO27001] A.12.2 +1	Critical	Operational evidence of malware incidents handling and periodic testing/audits of anti-malware coverage., Review vendor assessment reports and parser test/fuzzing results.	Pending
REQ-020	Deterministic model behavior controls and testing …	Quality Assurance / Model Governance	High	THR-010, THR-011, THR-021 +2	[OWASP] V11.2, [NIST] SA-11, [ISO27001] A.14.2.7 +1	Critical	Examine vendor test artifacts and reproduce tests locally to confirm deterministic behaviors., Review automated test results, CI/CD runs and acceptance criteria demonstrating deterministic outcomes and fidelity checks.	Pending
REQ-021	Vendor/third-party integration controls and supply…	Vendor Management / Supply Chain Security	High	THR-015, THR-026	[NIST] SA-12, [ISO27001] A.15.1, [OWASP] V14.8 +1	Critical	Contract reviews, supplier audits and evidence of compliance with onboarding security checks., Supply chain risk program documentation, monitoring dashboards and incident handling evidence for vendor-related issues.	Pending
REQ-022	Incident response, backup & recovery, and disaster…	Operations / Incident Response	High	None	[NIST] IR-4, [ISO27001] A.17.1, [NIST] CP-2 +1	Critical	Contingency plan evidence and results of DR exercises demonstrating recovery within RTO/RPO., IR plan review, exercise reports and evidence of incident detection and response activities.	Pending

Total Requirements Tracked: 22

Detailed Requirement Mappings

The following section provides detailed traceability for each requirement:

REQ-001: Synchronous translation endpoint for short texts with sub-second (≤1s) latency

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Attackers steal or reuse OAuth2/OIDC tokens, API keys, or session cookies (via p…
• THR-002: Malicious file uploads bypass malware scanning or safe parsing (e.g., crafted PD…
• THR-004: API key stuffing, excessive synchronous requests, or large uploads overwhelm the…
• THR-005: Malicious or compromised SDK/CLI distributed to customers tricks users into send…
• THR-006: Client-side XSS or compromised UI allows modification of language tags or reques…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V12.1: [OWASP] Implement performance considerations, rate limiting and protective measures to e…
• [NIST] RA-5: [NIST] Assess and document risks related to performance and availability, including lat…
• [ISO27001] A.12.1: [ISO27001] Documented operating procedures and responsibilities for maintaining availabilit…
• [NIST] CP-2: [NIST] Develop and maintain contingency plans to ensure continued operations and availa…

Verification: Load and latency testing under expected and spike loads; review rate-limiter configuration and monitoring dashboards showing 95th/99th percentile latency within target., Inspect operational procedures/runbooks and evidence of duty assignment; audit incidents against procedures to confirm adherence., Review contingency plans and exercise records demonstrating preservation of latency goals during simulated disruptions., Review risk assessment artifacts that include latency targets, mitigation decisions, and evidence of remediation or acceptance.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-002: Asynchronous translation workflow for large documents with task creation and tracking

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Attackers steal or reuse OAuth2/OIDC tokens, API keys, or session cookies (via p…
• THR-002: Malicious file uploads bypass malware scanning or safe parsing (e.g., crafted PD…
• THR-004: API key stuffing, excessive synchronous requests, or large uploads overwhelm the…
• THR-008: Insufficient or tamperable audit trails allow users or attackers to deny or eras…
• THR-009: Excessive API responses or debug endpoints leak metadata or partial content (e.g…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V12.3: [OWASP] Ensure asynchronous operations expose task creation, status and result endpoints…
• [NIST] SI-4: [NIST] Track and monitor system operations including job processing queues, task states…
• [ISO27001] A.12.5: [ISO27001] Implement controls for the management and monitoring of operational software, in…
• [NIST] PM-14: [NIST] Define and maintain enterprise-level workflow standards including lifecycle mana…

Verification: Review operational control records, change logs, and configuration management items for the queue/batch processing components., Assess architecture documentation and conformity of the workflow implementation to enterprise lifecycle standards., Inspect monitoring dashboards, alerts, and logs demonstrating job queue and lifecycle metrics; validate alerting thresholds and incident records., Review API specification and test that create/status/result endpoints exist, enforce auth, and behave as specified under normal and error conditions.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-003: Per-request execution isolation and sandboxing for asynchronous tasks

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Attackers steal or reuse OAuth2/OIDC tokens, API keys, or session cookies (via p…
• THR-007: Injection attacks (SQL/NoSQL, OS command, template injection) via unvalidated re…
• THR-012: Escaping sandboxed execution (container breakout or misconfigured VM) allows att…
• THR-014: Attackers submit many large asynchronous translation tasks or specially crafted …
• THR-015: An attacker manipulates task descriptors in the queue (e.g., altering target sto…
• …and 2 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V14.5: [OWASP] Enforce per-request or per-tenant isolation using containers, sandboxes, or VMs …
• [NIST] SC-2: [NIST] Employ application partitioning and isolation techniques to separate execution e…
• [ISO27001] A.14.2: [ISO27001] Ensure systems developed and supplied by third parties maintain separation and i…
• [NIST] SA-11: [NIST] Require that acquired systems use secure deployment models that include isolatio…

Verification: Audit isolation configurations, run isolation tests and review CI/CD manifests for enforced partitioning (namespaces, cgroups, VPCs)., Review procurement artifacts and acceptance testing reports validating isolation features of acquired systems., Review supplier contracts and third-party assessment reports; validate vendor sandboxing capabilities via evidence or testing., Review deployment architecture and conduct penetration tests that attempt cross-task/tenant access; verify teardown and privilege restrictions.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-004: Support for multi-format document ingestion and output preservation (PDF, DOCX, XML, etc.)

Related Threats:

• THR-003: Misconfigured TLS or TLS termination at edge permits MITM or use of weak ciphers…
• THR-007: Injection attacks (SQL/NoSQL, OS command, template injection) via unvalidated re…
• THR-009: Excessive API responses or debug endpoints leak metadata or partial content (e.g…
• THR-010: Sensitive content leaks to third-party model providers or to other tenants (mult…
• THR-012: Escaping sandboxed execution (container breakout or misconfigured VM) allows att…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V5.10: [OWASP] Validate and safely parse uploaded files; preserve content structure where neede…
• [NIST] PL-8: [NIST] Document supported data formats and handling procedures to ensure integrity and …
• [ISO27001] A.8.3: [ISO27001] Handle media and files according to classification rules; ensure preservation an…
• [NIST] SI-10: [NIST] Implement protections against malicious file content and ensure safe parsing and…

Verification: Inspect classification policies and evidence that processing pipelines respect classification and preservation controls., Verify scanning/sanitization pipelines via penetration tests and review detection/quarantine logs for malicious file handling., Review documentation and run test suites that verify supported-format round-trips and preservation of content/formatting., Code review of parser usage, fuzz testing against file parsers, and functional tests verifying formatting preservation across formats.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-005: Preserve domain-specific terminology, claim/legal phrasing, and formatting fidelity

Related Threats:

• THR-011: Model poisoning or malicious third-party models insert commentary, change claims…
• THR-025: Model hallucination or automated post-processing adds commentary or reasoning se…

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V11.1: [OWASP] Ensure systems preserve business-critical semantics and terminology across proce…
• [NIST] SC-13: [NIST] Protect the integrity of information during processing and transmission to prese…
• [ISO27001] A.10.1: [ISO27001] Use cryptographic controls to protect integrity and authenticity of information,…
• [NIST] AU-9: [NIST] Ensure audit records can demonstrate integrity of request/response content and a…

Verification: Inspect audit logs and transformation metadata to confirm provenance and integrity of outputs., Review cryptographic policy and evidence of signatures/checksums applied to preserved outputs., Automated regression tests comparing original vs transformed texts for terminology fidelity and manual legal QA on representative samples., Verify integrity protection mechanisms (digital signatures, checksums) and compare hashes across processing stages.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-006: No-addition guarantee: outputs must not include commentary or reasoning

Related Threats:

• THR-009: Excessive API responses or debug endpoints leak metadata or partial content (e.g…
• THR-011: Model poisoning or malicious third-party models insert commentary, change claims…
• THR-015: An attacker manipulates task descriptors in the queue (e.g., altering target sto…
• THR-016: Compromise or misconfiguration of cloud object storage or metadata DB exposes en…
• THR-017: An attacker or insider modifies or deletes encrypted outputs, metadata, or audit…
• …and 4 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V11.3: [OWASP] Implement controls to ensure outputs do not include unauthorized content or addi…
• [NIST] PL-4: [NIST] Establish rules of behavior and acceptable use that define allowed transformatio…
• [ISO27001] A.9.1: [ISO27001] Define access and usage rules to ensure system outputs conform to business and l…
• [NIST] SA-11: [NIST] Require vendors to demonstrate deterministic and constrained behavior of service…

Verification: Audit access control lists and change logs for output-processing configuration changes., Review vendor test reports and perform independent testing to confirm outputs do not include extraneous commentary., Review rules of behavior documentation and evidence of training; test system behavior against these rules., Functional tests asserting that outputs contain no extra commentary; automated checks and manual spot-checks of outputs for violations.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-007: Full support for specified European languages and extensible support for Asian languages with strict…

Related Threats:

• THR-006: Client-side XSS or compromised UI allows modification of language tags or reques…
• THR-023: Attackers exploit the strict ≤1 second sync latency by crafting many small rapid…
• THR-024: Malformed BCP-47 language tags or deliberately crafted tags trigger parser bugs …

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V5.4: [OWASP] Validate locale and language inputs, ensure correct encoding and adherence to ac…
• [NIST] SI-10: [NIST] Enforce input validation for all externally supplied data, including locale and …
• [ISO27001] A.14.2.5: [ISO27001] Incorporate internationalization and localization considerations into secure dev…
• [NIST] PL-8: [NIST] Document supported languages and validation rules for system inputs and outputs.

Verification: Review validation libraries and test cases; check logs for rejected locale inputs and handling behavior., Unit tests for BCP-47 validation, fuzz tests with malformed locale inputs, and review of input validation code paths., Inspect documentation and API schemas to confirm supported languages and validation are declared and enforced., Check development artifacts for i18n requirements, test coverage for additional language support and localization QA results.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

---

REQ-008: REST API exposing synchronous and asynchronous endpoints, OpenAPI 3.1 compliant

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Attackers steal or reuse OAuth2/OIDC tokens, API keys, or session cookies (via p…
• THR-004: API key stuffing, excessive synchronous requests, or large uploads overwhelm the…
• THR-005: Malicious or compromised SDK/CLI distributed to customers tricks users into send…
• THR-006: Client-side XSS or compromised UI allows modification of language tags or reques…
• THR-010: Sensitive content leaks to third-party model providers or to other tenants (mult…
• …and 2 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V12.2: [OWASP] Publish and validate API schemas (e.g., OpenAPI) and ensure API endpoints confor…
• [NIST] SC-7: [NIST] Protect API boundaries with proper controls, enforce protocol and schema validat…
• [ISO27001] A.14.2.1: [ISO27001] Adopt secure development policies including API design standards and specificati…
• [NIST] IA-5: [NIST] Ensure APIs use strong authentication mechanisms consistent with secure API desi…

Verification: Review OpenAPI securitySchemes and runtime enforcement of authentication methods., Review secure development policies and CI/CD pipeline evidence enforcing OpenAPI schema validation gates., Inspect gateway rules, schema validation logs, and perform boundary penetration tests to confirm protections., Validate that the published OpenAPI 3.1 spec matches implemented endpoints and perform contract tests against the schema.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-009: Distinct status and result endpoints for task lifecycle tracking (ST.90 workflow compliance)

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Attackers steal or reuse OAuth2/OIDC tokens, API keys, or session cookies (via p…
• THR-005: Malicious or compromised SDK/CLI distributed to customers tricks users into send…
• THR-006: Client-side XSS or compromised UI allows modification of language tags or reques…
• THR-008: Insufficient or tamperable audit trails allow users or attackers to deny or eras…
• THR-009: Excessive API responses or debug endpoints leak metadata or partial content (e.g…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V12.3: [OWASP] Ensure asynchronous operations expose task creation, status and result endpoints…
• [NIST] AU-2: [NIST] Generate audit records for task lifecycle events (creation, status changes, resu…
• [ISO27001] A.12.1.2: [ISO27001] Ensure changes to operational services (including endpoints) are tracked and app…
• [NIST] CM-8: [NIST] Maintain records of system components and services including task lifecycle endp…

Verification: Inspect component inventory and configuration records showing endpoint metadata and versions., Review change records and test results demonstrating lifecycle behaviors post-change., Review audit logs and event schemas to confirm lifecycle events are recorded with required metadata., API inspection and functional tests verifying separate endpoints and correct auth checks for each lifecycle operation.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-010: Scalable task queueing, batching, and parallelization with deterministic performance targets

Related Threats:

• THR-008: Insufficient or tamperable audit trails allow users or attackers to deny or eras…
• THR-014: Attackers submit many large asynchronous translation tasks or specially crafted …
• THR-015: An attacker manipulates task descriptors in the queue (e.g., altering target sto…
• THR-023: Attackers exploit the strict ≤1 second sync latency by crafting many small rapid…
• THR-027: Task metadata (status endpoints) allow enumeration of tasks across tenants if id…
• …and 1 more threats

Security Controls:

• [NIST] SC-5: [NIST] Implement protections to ensure system availability under high loads, including …
• [OWASP] V12.1: [OWASP] Implement performance considerations, rate limiting and protective measures to e…
• [ISO27001] A.12.1: [ISO27001] Documented operating procedures and responsibilities for maintaining availabilit…
• [NIST] CP-10: [NIST] Plan for alternate processing capabilities to maintain deterministic performance…

Verification: Load tests simulating high throughput and verification of queueing policies and service-level performance under stress., Inspect runbooks and SLO reports demonstrating adherence to deterministic targets and operational responses., Review rate-limit configurations and conduct deterministic performance benchmarks across varying load patterns., Failover exercises and performance tests on alternate processing paths validating deterministic behavior.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-011: Efficient handling of high throughput with GPU utilization metrics and resource management

Related Threats:

• THR-014: Attackers submit many large asynchronous translation tasks or specially crafted …
• THR-020: An attacker tampers with metrics/alerting to suppress alerts or hide resource ab…
• THR-023: Attackers exploit the strict ≤1 second sync latency by crafting many small rapid…
• THR-024: Malformed BCP-47 language tags or deliberately crafted tags trigger parser bugs …
• THR-025: Model hallucination or automated post-processing adds commentary or reasoning se…
• …and 2 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V14.6: [OWASP] Monitor and limit resource usage for hosts and containers and expose metrics for…
• [NIST] MA-4: [NIST] Perform maintenance and monitoring of system components including specialized ha…
• [ISO27001] A.12.1.1: [ISO27001] Maintain procedures for managing resources and monitoring system performance met…
• [NIST] CM-6: [NIST] Establish and document configuration settings for resource allocation and limits…

Verification: Inspect configuration manifests and compare deployed settings to documented templates., Maintenance logs, utilization history and evidence of corrective actions based on metrics., Review procedures and evidence of adherence (alerts handled, capacity planning records)., Inspect monitoring dashboards for GPU metrics and review enforcement of resource limits in container runtime configs.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

---

REQ-012: Non-intrusive monitoring and observability (throughput, latency, error rates, resource usage) withou…

Related Threats:

• THR-009: Excessive API responses or debug endpoints leak metadata or partial content (e.g…
• THR-010: Sensitive content leaks to third-party model providers or to other tenants (mult…
• THR-014: Attackers submit many large asynchronous translation tasks or specially crafted …
• THR-019: Logs, traces, or error messages inadvertently include sensitive document snippet…
• THR-020: An attacker tampers with metrics/alerting to suppress alerts or hide resource ab…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V14.7: [OWASP] Collect non-sensitive telemetry for observability and avoid capturing sensitive …
• [NIST] AU-12: [NIST] Define retention and content of audit records; prefer metadata over content to r…
• [ISO27001] A.12.4: [ISO27001] Implement logging and monitoring while protecting personal data and avoiding unn…
• [NIST] SC-7: [NIST] Ensure monitoring systems do not expose sensitive information and enforce separa…

Verification: Inspect logs for presence of PII/content, verify masking policies and access controls to monitoring systems., Audit telemetry pipelines and logs to ensure no payload content is captured; inspect dashboards and sample telemetry events., Review audit record schemas and retention policies; sample logs to confirm content exclusion and redaction., Network and configuration review showing separation and least-privilege telemetry ingestion mechanisms.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-013: Strong authentication and authorization for API access (token-based, MFA, RBAC)

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Attackers steal or reuse OAuth2/OIDC tokens, API keys, or session cookies (via p…
• THR-002: Malicious file uploads bypass malware scanning or safe parsing (e.g., crafted PD…
• THR-003: Misconfigured TLS or TLS termination at edge permits MITM or use of weak ciphers…
• THR-004: API key stuffing, excessive synchronous requests, or large uploads overwhelm the…
• THR-012: Escaping sandboxed execution (container breakout or misconfigured VM) allows att…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [NIST] IA-2: [NIST] Employ multifactor authentication for network access to privileged functions and…
• [OWASP] V2.1: [OWASP] Implement secure token handling, strong authentication including MFA, and protec…
• [ISO27001] A.9.2: [ISO27001] Manage user access rights and ensure appropriate authentication mechanisms inclu…
• [NIST] AC-2: [NIST] Implement account management processes and RBAC to ensure authorized access to s…

Verification: Access reviews, RBAC policy audits and verification of MFA enforcement for targeted roles., Audit account lifecycle records and RBAC role assignments for appropriate least-privilege enforcement., Token lifecycle review, token revocation tests, and security review of token storage mechanisms., Review authentication configuration, MFA enrollment records and test privileged API access requires MFA or equivalent controls.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-014: Fine-grained access control and multi-tenant isolation (per-customer isolation options)

Related Threats:

• THR-005: Malicious or compromised SDK/CLI distributed to customers tricks users into send…
• THR-010: Sensitive content leaks to third-party model providers or to other tenants (mult…
• THR-012: Escaping sandboxed execution (container breakout or misconfigured VM) allows att…
• THR-013: Residual data in GPU or worker memory is accessible to subsequent jobs (data rem…
• THR-015: An attacker manipulates task descriptors in the queue (e.g., altering target sto…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [NIST] SC-2: [NIST] Employ application partitioning and isolation techniques to separate execution e…
• [ISO27001] A.9.4: [ISO27001] Restrict access to information and application functions; enforce separation of …
• [OWASP] V14.5: [OWASP] Enforce per-request or per-tenant isolation using containers, sandboxes, or VMs …
• [NIST] AC-3: [NIST] Enforce access control policies that allow fine-grained authorization decisions …

Verification: Access enforcement testing with varied tenant roles and attributes to ensure correct authorization decisions., Validate tenant deployment options and perform security tests verifying isolation boundaries., Isolation testing that attempts cross-tenant access and review of partitioning configurations and policies., Policy and configuration review showing tenant-scoped access controls and separation of duties assignments.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-015: End-to-end encryption for data in transit and at rest, with customer-controlled keys where required …

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Attackers steal or reuse OAuth2/OIDC tokens, API keys, or session cookies (via p…
• THR-003: Misconfigured TLS or TLS termination at edge permits MITM or use of weak ciphers…
• THR-007: Injection attacks (SQL/NoSQL, OS command, template injection) via unvalidated re…
• THR-009: Excessive API responses or debug endpoints leak metadata or partial content (e.g…
• THR-012: Escaping sandboxed execution (container breakout or misconfigured VM) allows att…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [ISO27001] A.10.1: [ISO27001] Use cryptographic controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availab…
• [OWASP] V6.1: [OWASP] Ensure strong transport layer protection (TLS) and encryption for data at rest w…
• [NIST] SC-13: [NIST] Protect the integrity of information during processing and transmission to prese…
• [NIST] MP-6: [NIST] Control access to storage and media and protect media using encryption when requ…

Verification: TLS configuration scans, encryption-at-rest verification and review of key management integration and logs., Cryptographic usage review, key separation validation and integrity verification tests., Review encryption configurations, key access controls and evidence of CMEK usage and separation for tenants requesting it., Encryption evidence for storage volumes and access control reviews for media/key management.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-016: Secure key management, secrets handling, and cryptographic lifecycle controls

Security Controls:

• [NIST] KM-1: [NIST] Establish a key management program that covers lifecycle including key generatio…
• [ISO27001] A.10.1.2: [ISO27001] Implement key management practices to protect cryptographic keys throughout thei…
• [OWASP] V6.6: [OWASP] Use secure key storage, rotate keys, use HSMs or KMS and prevent secrets leakage…
• [NIST] SC-12: [NIST] Enforce cryptographic key establishment and management processes to secure commu…

Verification: Review key establishment protocols, PKI artifacts and evidence of secure distribution channels., Secret scanning, code reviews for secret leaks, and inspection of KMS/HSM use and access controls., Review KMS configurations, rotation logs, key access policies and evidence of controlled key destruction., Examine key management procedures and records of key lifecycle events and custody.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-017: Comprehensive audit logging and immutable tamper-evident trails for requests, tasks, and outputs

Related Threats:

• THR-004: API key stuffing, excessive synchronous requests, or large uploads overwhelm the…
• THR-008: Insufficient or tamperable audit trails allow users or attackers to deny or eras…
• THR-009: Excessive API responses or debug endpoints leak metadata or partial content (e.g…
• THR-014: Attackers submit many large asynchronous translation tasks or specially crafted …
• THR-015: An attacker manipulates task descriptors in the queue (e.g., altering target sto…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [NIST] AU-2: [NIST] Generate audit records for defined events and ensure they contain sufficient inf…
• [ISO27001] A.12.4: [ISO27001] Implement logging and monitoring of events and ensure logs are protected from ta…
• [OWASP] V11.4: [OWASP] Record and protect audit records for business-critical operations and provide ta…
• [NIST] AU-9: [NIST] Protect audit information from unauthorized access, modification, and deletion t…

Verification: Audit log inspection verifying required fields are present and completeness of recorded events., Review log storage configurations, integrity checks, and access controls; attempt tamper simulations where safe., Inspect signed log entries, centralized log pipelines and role-based access policies; validate tamper-evidence features., Review access logs for audit repositories and confirm protections against modification/deletion are in place.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-018: Data retention, deletion, and data subject rights (GDPR) support including deletion/ export of origi…

Related Threats:

• THR-007: Injection attacks (SQL/NoSQL, OS command, template injection) via unvalidated re…
• THR-009: Excessive API responses or debug endpoints leak metadata or partial content (e.g…
• THR-012: Escaping sandboxed execution (container breakout or misconfigured VM) allows att…
• THR-013: Residual data in GPU or worker memory is accessible to subsequent jobs (data rem…
• THR-015: An attacker manipulates task descriptors in the queue (e.g., altering target sto…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [ISO27001] A.18.1.4: [ISO27001] Ensure appropriate measures for privacy and protection of PII including rights t…
• [OWASP] V11.5: [OWASP] Implement data retention, deletion and data subject rights support in applicatio…
• [NIST] MP-4: [NIST] Implement controls to manage media access, retention and sanitization including …
• [NIST] PL-8: [NIST] Document retention policies and procedures to support legal and privacy obligati…

Verification: DSAR acceptance tests, retention policy audits and verification of deletion across store tiers., Inspect deletion logs, backup retention management and evidence of secure sanitization actions., Review DSAR handling procedures, test deletion/export flows and evidence of correlated backup sanitization., Review published retention policies and alignment with implemented retention/deletion mechanisms.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-019: Input validation, content sanitization, and protection against malicious files (malware scanning, sa…

Related Threats:

• THR-002: Malicious file uploads bypass malware scanning or safe parsing (e.g., crafted PD…
• THR-005: Malicious or compromised SDK/CLI distributed to customers tricks users into send…
• THR-006: Client-side XSS or compromised UI allows modification of language tags or reques…
• THR-009: Excessive API responses or debug endpoints leak metadata or partial content (e.g…
• THR-010: Sensitive content leaks to third-party model providers or to other tenants (mult…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V5.10: [OWASP] Validate and safely parse uploaded files; preserve content structure where neede…
• [NIST] SI-3: [NIST] Employ mechanisms to detect and protect against malicious code and files includi…
• [ISO27001] A.12.2: [ISO27001] Implement anti-malware controls and procedures for handling potentially maliciou…
• [NIST] SA-11: [NIST] Ensure third-party components handle input validation and parsing safely and are…

Verification: Operational evidence of malware incidents handling and periodic testing/audits of anti-malware coverage., Review vendor assessment reports and parser test/fuzzing results., Review malware scanning configs, detection logs and quarantine handling; test with benign test malware samples (EICAR)., Run fuzzing and file-format attack tests and validate quarantine/alerting behavior on malicious samples.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-020: Deterministic model behavior controls and testing for terminology fidelity and non-addition properti…

Related Threats:

• THR-010: Sensitive content leaks to third-party model providers or to other tenants (mult…
• THR-011: Model poisoning or malicious third-party models insert commentary, change claims…
• THR-021: Third-party AV/Model providers exfiltrate scanned document metadata or inference…
• THR-024: Malformed BCP-47 language tags or deliberately crafted tags trigger parser bugs …
• THR-025: Model hallucination or automated post-processing adds commentary or reasoning se…

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V11.2: [OWASP] Apply automated testing to ensure business logic correctness and that outputs co…
• [NIST] SA-11: [NIST] Require vendors to test and demonstrate system behavior including functional cor…
• [ISO27001] A.14.2.7: [ISO27001] Ensure that development processes include verification and testing of functional…
• [NIST] CA-2: [NIST] Perform security assessments including functional testing to validate system beh…

Verification: Examine vendor test artifacts and reproduce tests locally to confirm deterministic behaviors., Review automated test results, CI/CD runs and acceptance criteria demonstrating deterministic outcomes and fidelity checks., Assessment reports and evidence of remediation for any behavioral divergences found during security assessments., Review development artifacts and test results demonstrating verification of fidelity requirements.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

Showing detailed mappings for 20 of 22 requirements.

---

Appendix E: References

• OWASP ASVS 5.0
• NIST Cybersecurity Framework
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022
• OWASP Top 10
• MITRE ATT&CK Framework

---

End of Report - Generated by Security Requirements Analysis System v2.0 Generated: 2025-11-19 18:21:38